Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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? |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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 |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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 |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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? |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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? |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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................ |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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 |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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 |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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! |
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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! |
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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! |
#31
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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 |
#32
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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? |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#36
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
#37
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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. |
#38
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
"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. |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
|
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
An opinion on gun control
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Radio Control Varmint Control | Metalworking | |||
Maytag "Touch Control 500" Range Control Panel | Home Repair | |||
Let me get your opinion | Home Ownership | |||
TV Opinion | Electronics Repair | |||
TV Remote Control rubber pad(UR50CT1071) used in remote control for Panasonic TV Model TX-29GF10X | Electronics Repair |