Not mine.

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Dean Hoffman wrote:
Not mine.

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

"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.

Dean Hoffman wrote:

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Let's unpack that.

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones. We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

So in reality, where are the non-"gun-free" zones?

The roads, highways, side walks, maybe parking lots?

When you look at this aspect in a logical, rational way, anyone that
wants to "hunt" people has many places to do it, and those places will
never be a non-"gun-free" zone.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to
make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most
famous person in the world.

Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook
Elementary School). The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social
networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous. I think the same can be said of the "Batman"
theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.

But this brings up an important point.

If you know you are going to have violent, homicidal people, then why
allow the sale and possession of such a dangerous consumer product like
a firearm? The answer is that you can't stop the sale of something that
has been publically available for dozens, even hundreds of years.

You can't curtail the personal firearm industry in the United States
today. You could have maybe 50, 75, 100 years ago, in terms of the
design / capability of these products, and over the years mandated that
safety features be incorporated into their design by law much the same
way that automobiles have air bags and ABS brakes.

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws
that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that
govern how consumers handle them.

If the US was suddenly confronted with people being electrocuted by
toasters, even if the vast majority of people continued to use toasters
without injury, you can bet that next year the old toaster designs would
be replaced with new ones. The same problem-solving mentality is never
applied when the consumer product in question is personal firearms. Why
is that?

On 12/22/12 8:54 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

I remember the fire drills at school way back when I was a kid.
Everyone went about their business unless the alarm went off. This
would be similar, I think.

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.

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.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:33 -0500, Home Guy wrote:




Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.



So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones.
ASS U ME if you want.


We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.


Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.







Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook
Elementary School). The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social
networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous. I think the same can be said of the "Batman"
theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the paper?
He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.
Destroying the evidence only makes it more intriguing as to why he did
it.






The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws
that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that
govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes this
type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up schools that
I'm aware of. Is it video games? Copycat violence? Preservatives in
our food? Getting you picture on the 6 o'clock news? Violence has
existed as long as mankind has existed but now it seems more
concentrated at times.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to
lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT
make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.

Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage
declaring they are a gun-free zone?

We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries,
gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.

I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement
community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports,
courts and gov't buildings).

We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in
this thread.

The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks
or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the
paper?

He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.

Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?

Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?

I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the
idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these
mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next
mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and
I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.

Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing
AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives
insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own
idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become
famous).

He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.

As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those
kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and
disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.

If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that
you keep talking about?

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in
laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor
in laws that govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes
this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up
schools that I'm aware of.

Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also
probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.

I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being
their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.

On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to
lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT
make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.

Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage
declaring they are a gun-free zone?

We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries,
gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.

I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement
community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports,
courts and gov't buildings).

We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in
this thread.

The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks
or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the
paper?

He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.

Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?

Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?

I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the
idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these
mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next
mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and
I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.

Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing
AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives
insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own
idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become
famous).

He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.

As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those
kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and
disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.

If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that
you keep talking about?

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in
laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor
in laws that govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes
this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up
schools that I'm aware of.

Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also
probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.

I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being
their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.


Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to
describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine
if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those
of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood
history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids
emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying
drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal
infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they
behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults.
That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be
handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years
ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's
right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the
high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught
how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best
demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled
themselves. O_o

TDD

On Dec 22, 6:54*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Dean Hoffman wrote:
* Not mine.

* *This is from Larry Correia. *New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
* * *http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
* The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
* *He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

* *Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

Substitute "fire extinguisher" for gun

On Dec 22, 7:54*pm, 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.

Good people can defend themselithout using weapons. Only cowards
needs weapons.

Did you really write this? Do you really believe this?
omg ... I cannot recall when I've seen faultier logic.

Maybe the police should stop carrying firearms and switch to using
harsh words when the need arises?

Remove weapons from the equation.... the weak & old will suffer the
tyranny of the young & strong.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:54:23 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:



Dean Hoffman wrote:
Not mine.

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons

There is is, the mark of someone who knows nothing about weapons and
then proceeds to tell us what to do with ours. I won't continue
explaining it because someone else in this thread already has....


and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

And isn't it nice that YOU have a choice, why don't you just shut up
(until you know what you are talking about) and let the rest of us
have OUR choice.

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?

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:33 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:

This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.

Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Let's unpack that.

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones. We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

So in reality, where are the non-"gun-free" zones?

The roads, highways, side walks, maybe parking lots?

When you look at this aspect in a logical, rational way, anyone that
wants to "hunt" people has many places to do it, and those places will
never be a non-"gun-free" zone.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to
make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most
famous person in the world.

Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook
Elementary School). The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social
networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous. I think the same can be said of the "Batman"
theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.

But this brings up an important point.

If you know you are going to have violent, homicidal people, then why
allow the sale and possession of such a dangerous consumer product like
a firearm? The answer is that you can't stop the sale of something that
has been publically available for dozens, even hundreds of years.


The basic answer is because the second amendment says it's a right
that is not to be infringed. Every single objection you make about
guns can be easily made about the first amendment right to free
speech. We could solve a good many of our problems if we could just
stop people from telling other people stuff we don't want other people
to know, or that the gvt doesn't want the people to know. We could
stop copycat killings by requiring the MEDIA to be gvt licensed and
for all their stories to be passed thru a gvt censor to make sure
nothing "bad" gets published. This whole thing is so stupid it's
beyond understanding. WE HAVE THE RIGHT. If you don't like it then
try to get the constitution changed.


You can't curtail the personal firearm industry in the United States
today. You could have maybe 50, 75, 100 years ago, in terms of the
design / capability of these products, and over the years mandated that
safety features be incorporated into their design by law much the same
way that automobiles have air bags and ABS brakes.

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws
that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that
govern how consumers handle them.

If the US was suddenly confronted with people being electrocuted by
toasters, even if the vast majority of people continued to use toasters
without injury, you can bet that next year the old toaster designs would
be replaced with new ones. The same problem-solving mentality is never
applied when the consumer product in question is personal firearms. Why
is that?

On Dec 23, 1:25*am, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
* Not mine.

* *This is from Larry Correia. *New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
* * *http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
* The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
* *He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

* *Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Think of it more like an area/country inhabited by gun nuts is a
danger to the surrounding area/whole world.

Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by
gunshot. By accident or design.
Happy Christmas for a lot of people.

What a nation of whinging cowards you are.

On Dec 23, 3:14*am, " 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.

It's you are the stupid one. Thick as pitch comes to mind.
Owning a gun is no defence against getting shot.
Any aggressor can choose his time and place.

On Dec 23, 3:54*am, 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.

Exactly so.

On Dec 23, 4:17*am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:33 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones. *We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

That would be a bad assumption in the majority of US states which
allow concealed carry.
The only places you could count on as being gun free are the sterile
areas of an airport and in a court house.

The reality is most of the million licensed concealed carry people in
Florida do not regularly carry but they could. I still know people who
never leave the house without a gun.

The fearful and paranoid................

On Dec 23, 4:48*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:33 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.



So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones.

*ASS U ME if you want.

We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? *I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. *Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.



Let's unpack that one by looking at the most recent example (Sandy Hook
Elementary School). *The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social
networks or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous. *I think the same can be said of the "Batman"
theater shooter in Colorado, and the shooter at Virginia Tech.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the paper?
He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.
Destroying the evidence only makes it more intriguing as to why he did
it.



The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in laws
that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor in laws that
govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. *We also have to find what causes this
type of behavior. *Fifty years ago no one was shooting up schools that
I'm aware of. *Is it video games? Copycat violence? *Preservatives in
our food? *Getting you picture on the 6 o'clock news? *Violence has
existed as long as mankind has existed but now it seems more
concentrated at times.

Rubbish. You Have had gun massacres from day one in The USA.
I assume you have run out of indians and now must massacre one
another.
You have been massacring people in other countries, even Canadians in
1812.
It's a national problem as well as a personal problem.

A bit like the Roman empire. Collapsing in violence, depravity and
corruption.

On Dec 23, 6:42*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote:









Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to
lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT
make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.

Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage
declaring they are a gun-free zone?

We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries,
gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? *I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. *Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.

I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement
community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports,
courts and gov't buildings).

We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in
this thread.

The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks
or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the
paper?

He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.

Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?

Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?

I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the
idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these
mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next
mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and
I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.

Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing
AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives
insane, irrational people to do what they do. *We are applying our own
idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become
famous).

He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.

As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those
kids. *It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and
disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.

If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that
you keep talking about?

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in
laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor
in laws that govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. *We also have to find what causes
this type of behavior. *Fifty years ago no one was shooting up
schools that I'm aware of.

Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also
probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.

I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. *The difference being
their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.

Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to
describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine
if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those
of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood
history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids
emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying
drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal
infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they
behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults.
That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be
handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years
ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's
right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the
high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught
how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best
demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled
themselves. O_o

TDD

Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.

On Dec 23, 7:27*am, DD_BobK wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:54*pm, 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.
Good people can defend themselithout using weapons. Only cowards

needs weapons.

Did you really write this? *Do you really believe this?
omg ... I cannot recall when I've seen faultier logic.

Maybe the police should stop carrying firearms and switch to using
harsh words when the need arises?

Remove weapons from the equation.... the weak & old will suffer the
tyranny of the young & strong.

Only if they are immoral. But then they are in your sick society.

On Dec 23, 8:47*am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 19:54:23 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:











Dean Hoffman wrote:
* Not mine.

* *This is from Larry Correia. *New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
* * *http://tinyurl.com/catntyr
* The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
* *He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.

* *Part of his comment on gun free zones:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a
statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person
in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole
bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones
actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to
and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is
a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off
vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking
at that.

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons

There is is, the mark of someone who knows nothing about weapons and
then proceeds to tell us what to do with ours. *I won't continue
explaining it because someone else in this thread already has....

*and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing

using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

And isn't it nice that YOU have a choice, why don't you just shut up
(until you know what you are talking about) and let the rest of us
have OUR choice.

He feels sorry for the brain damaged, ie yourself.
Some people BTW don't deserve choice.

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.

On 12/23/2012 3:18 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 4:17 am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:33 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to lose
(from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT make / announce
that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

So right off the bat, we can assume that most commercial establishments
(shopping malls, theaters, restaurants, factories, offices, hospitals)
are gun-free zones. We know that many public-sector facilities
(schools, libraries, gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

That would be a bad assumption in the majority of US states which
allow concealed carry.
The only places you could count on as being gun free are the sterile
areas of an airport and in a court house.

The reality is most of the million licensed concealed carry people in
Florida do not regularly carry but they could. I still know people who
never leave the house without a gun.

The fearful and paranoid................


The prudent arm themselves because the gang bangers in Florida love to
use Whitey for target practice. They especially love British tourists
because they know the civilized Brits will be unarmed and helpless. ^_^

http://moonbattery.com/?p=9773

TDD

On 12/23/2012 3:34 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 23, 6:42 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 12/22/2012 11:25 PM, Homo Gay wrote:









Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most commercial establishments have nothing to gain, and much to
lose (from a legal / liability / insurance standpoint) to NOT
make / announce that their property is a "gun-free" zone.

Rarely have I seen such an announcement in any business.

Do some / many / most / all public schools in the US have signage
declaring they are a gun-free zone?

We know that many public-sector facilities (schools, libraries,
gov't offices, court buildings, DMV, airports, etc)
are probably gun-free zones even if they are not signed as such.

Have you ever been to one of those places? I've seen some rather
strong armament at airports, especially in Europe. Courts and many
government buildings have armed guards.

I wasn't counting any "duly-deputized" members of the law-enforcement
community, nor anyone hired as armed security in those places (airports,
courts and gov't buildings).

We are talking about civilians carrying personal firearms in public in
this thread.

The shooter made no attempt to hook into any social networks
or leave behind anything that would give the world a statement
or make him famous.

You think killing 26 people they would not put his name in the
paper?

He wasn't even carrying his own ID at the time.

Did he kill those kids because he wanted to be famous (or infamous) ?

Or did he kill them *regardless* the media coverage that would result?

I know a lot of right-wing AM-radio talking heads have put forward the
idea that the liberal media is facilitating and fostering these
mass-murders because their coverage of the event is showing the next
mass-murderer how he can be famous, but I don't buy that argument, and
I'm sure a lot of other sane, rational people don't either.

Clinically-sane, rational people (which, by the way, includes right-wing
AM-radio talking heads) are be definition incapable to know what drives
insane, irrational people to do what they do. We are applying our own
idea of why we might want to commit such acts (mass murder = become
famous).

He did not have to leave a Facebook message to get notoriety.

As I said above, we can't even pretend to know why he killed those
kids. It's a foregone conclusion that when something shocking and
disturbing happens, that the media is going to report it.

If he was driven by a voice in his head that told him to kill those kids
- do you think he gave any consideration to this so-called "fame" that
you keep talking about?

The solution to this problem lies in the product itself - not in
laws that govern who can sell them or who can obtain them, nor
in laws that govern how consumers handle them.

That is part of the solution. We also have to find what causes
this type of behavior. Fifty years ago no one was shooting up
schools that I'm aware of.

Fifty (even 10 or 20) years ago, divorced single women with kids also
probably didn't own an arsenal of guns like this woman did.

I'm sure there were troubled boys 50 years ago. The difference being
their moms pantry didn't double as an armory.

Homo Gay, typical of Liberal morons to use the word "arsenal" to
describe a small number of firearms owned by a civilian. I imagine
if the woman owned a bag of wheat sitting in a 50gal drum, those
of your ilk would describe it as a grain silo. If you understood
history at all, you would know that there is a generation of kids
emerging into adulthood who have been loaded with behavior modifying
drugs since they were small children at the behest of the Liberal
infested educational system. Little boys are drugged because they
behave like little boys and they grow up to become psychotic adults.
That didn't happen 50 years ago when firearms were more likely to be
handled by children under adult supervision and approval. 50 years
ago, even in cities which now have severe restrictions on people's
right to own firearms, there would be a rifle team in many of the
high schools where children were exposed to those evil guns and taught
how to fire them. The damage done to a population by drug use is best
demonstrated by the morons they vote into office who are drug addled
themselves. O_o

TDD

Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.


Are British schoolchildren pumped full of Ritalin to control their
behavior or have the more Conservative humans kept control of the
government run schools? O_o

TDD

On 12/23/12 3:11 AM, harry wrote:


Think of it more like an area/country inhabited by gun nuts is a
danger to the surrounding area/whole world.

Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by
gunshot. By accident or design.
Happy Christmas for a lot of people.

What a nation of whinging cowards you are.


Probably a hundred Americans die per day in traffic accidents.
About 2 five year olds die per day just in the normal course of events
in the U.S.
It was/is a terrible thing for those involved but not a big deal in the
grand scheme of things.


The commentary from Correia is awfully long. Did you see his
comments on the Mumbai, India attack by the ten terrorists?
Quote:

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in
utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi
terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a
rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack.
They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict
gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.
That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response.
These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the
hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in
America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The
Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship
sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely
fell apart.
In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our
government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of
whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the
problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d
never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun
so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to
actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off
your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary
to do the job.

"harry" wrote in message
...
Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.


....and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and here you
are still envious of US. LMFAO!

"harry" wrote in message
...
Rubbish. You Have had gun massacres from day one in The USA.
I assume you have run out of indians and now must massacre one
another.
You have been massacring people in other countries, even Canadians in
1812.
It's a national problem as well as a personal problem.

A bit like the Roman empire. Collapsing in violence, depravity and
corruption.


....and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and you're
still envious of US. LMFAO!

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 1:25 am, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
Think of it more like an area/country inhabited by gun nuts is a
danger to the surrounding area/whole world.

Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by
gunshot. By accident or design.
Happy Christmas for a lot of people.

What a nation of whinging cowards you are.

....and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and here you
are still envious of US. LMFAO!

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.

So, either:

A: You know so little that you don't realize the above

B: You do, but want to do it again, even though it's proven not to
work.




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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The list here by geography says you're wrong again:

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

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:34:17 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:




Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.

You are full of crap. It happens there too.

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in
the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman,
43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed
with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one
adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford
massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the
deadliest criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the
United Kingdom.

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.

So, either:

A: You know so little that you don't realize the above

B: You do, but want to do it again, even though it's proven not to
work.




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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The list here by geography says you're wrong again:

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




This is in dispute with CNN information.

On Dec 23, 9:31*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.

So, either:

A: *You know so little that you don't realize the above

B: You do, but want to do it again, even though it's proven not to
work.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The list here by geography says you're wrong again:

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

This is in dispute with CNN information. * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many times must I say it? You continue to astound us with
your knowledge and grasp of the subject. I and others post fact
after fact, with references, etc. that completely demolishes your
nonsense. You respond with "this is in dispute with CNN
information".
As if anyone even knows WTF you're talking about. You do
accomplish one thing. And that is demonstrating the total
ignorance and inability to respond of the anti-gun crowd.
Make sure you stay on that side, OK?

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.

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.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:34:17 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:




Funny (not ha ha) non of these things happen in the UK.

You can put most of it down to Hollywood and the violent video games
now circulating.
Eg the Arnie/Clint moveis
They affect the brains of the simple minded.

We have the simple minded over here but they can't get hold of these
weapons.

You are full of crap. It happens there too.

The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in
the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman,
43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed
with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one
adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford
massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the
deadliest criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the
United Kingdom.

Don't confuse the idiot with facts. His invidious ego is incapable of such
data.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 12/22/12 8:54 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
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?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.

I remember the fire drills at school way back when I was a kid.
Everyone went about their business unless the alarm went off. This would
be similar, I think.



Well, clearly NOT in the mind of stupid gun controllers
Apparently their fantasy is that anyone carrying in school would be walking
around with one hand on the butt of the gun, constantly scanning everyone
around them.
Reminds me of the "Jake" the Jack Elam character in Support your local
sherrif.

wrote:

After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following
Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars.

No, but what you do see is this:

1) To legally drive a car, you must have a valid driver's license. That
alone doesn't stop someone from getting in a car and driving it, but
police with probable-cause can stop any car and ask to see if the driver
is licensed. There will be legal and financial consequences if the
driver is not licensed. These consequences will be significant if
property dammage, injury or death of a person is involved.

2) To operate a motor vehicle, the vehicle must be insured against
property dammage and personal injury. That alone doesn't stop someone
from getting in a car and driving it, but police with probable-cause can
stop any car and ask to see if the car is insured. There will be legal
and financial consequences if the car is not insured. These
consequences will be significant if property dammage, injury or death of
a person is involved.

3) The safety of cars, like many consumer products, are constantly being
improved with the application of technology and gov't mandates. The
design of the occupant compartment, air bags, ABS brakes, stability
control, etc.

4) If an injury or death happens as a result of some deficiency or fault
in a consumer product (such as a car), the manufacturer can be held
liable by a court of law.

Now tell me if any of the above applies to personal firearms, their
owners, and the companies that make them.

Tony Hwang wrote:
Hmmm,
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire
arm, first step should be banning the ownership of assault type
automatic weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun
is one thing using it properly and well is another, how many owners
are like that? 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? IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No
thanks no gun for me or my family.

I respect your opinion, but I fear it's based on ignorance. Please allow me
to illustrate:

* You claim wackos arm themselves with 200 round magazine or drum. The true
wackos might, because drum and extremely large capacities will almost always
jam, rendering the weapon useless.

* You assert that banning ownership of assault type weapons should be the
first step. Actually, you said "assault type
automatic weapons" First, ALL automatic weapons ARE banned. They were
banned in 1934 !

You might as well say banning weapons that shoot lightning-bolts should be
banned, because there is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon." If
you doubt that statement, I await your definition of "assault weapon."

In 1994, Congress DID (try to) define a civilian "assault weapon," or tried
to. Here's their definition:
Any weapon with a detachable magazine AND two or more of the following:
- Folding or adjustable stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher

Can you imagine anything sillier? Every weapon falling into the defined
catagory could be made compliant with nothing more than a hacksaw (to remove
the bayonet mount). And they were.

A subsequent follow-up on the crime rate, after ten years of the ban showed
NO change in the crime rate.

Anyway, give me YOUR definition of a civilian "assault weapon" or
"assault-type weapon" and we can have a meaningful conversation.

* You favor elimination of high-capacity magazines. Do you know how simple a
thing a magazine it? I'll tell you: it's a piece of bent sheet metal
(sometimes plastic) enclosing a spring. It is trivial to construct one in an
ordinary sheet-metal fabrication shop (in fact, I'm surprised more sheet
metal shops don't take on their manufacture on as a sideline).

* Lastly, you feel the more gun, the greater chance for a problem. This
notion was debunked by John Lott in his book "More Guns Less Crime," in
which he studied the gun crimes in each of the 3050 counties in the United
States. He centered on the change in gun crime before and after the states
enacted concealed handgun licenses for their citizens. In every case after
CHL passage, violence involving guns diminished, sometimes dramatically,
after such enabling legislation. If I remember correctly, on average,
forcible rapes decreased by 8% and armed robberies by a greater amount.

Go ahead - let's chat. But, again, the first thing I want to hear is what
you might consider an "assault weapon" and why.

Thanks in advance.