"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They've probably never consummated. Jim is really an alien, anyway.


I agree on the alien part but they did consumate, they have two children and
don't talk politics at home.

Wes

Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:


SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

So...you beat your wife Dan?

Otherwise why would you blurt that comment out?

I believe domestic abuse can be used for cause which can result in
loss of one's weapons.

So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like a standard Scientologist tactic. Turn a
question around to infer the questioner is guilty and use it in a veiled
threat...

IMHO, you only get to turn the question around like that if you answer the
question (honestly) first.

Jon

uh, someone forgot to say, "And how does that make you FEEL when someone
says that?"

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They've probably never consummated. Jim is really an alien, anyway.


I agree on the alien part but they did consumate, they have two children
and
don't talk politics at home.

But we don't know how aliens do it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Bill" wrote in message
. 97.142...
"SteveB" wrote in
:

snip

uh, someone forgot to say, "And how does that make you FEEL when
someone says that?"





I see....Now about your parents.....

Bill

Oh, I see that we're out of time! Hold that thought until next week.

Steve

Bill wrote:

After
all he IS one of the biggest dick heads around.....

He is more amusing than Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert.

Wes

In article , " wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

TMT

The reason I posted that was you previous post. An ad hominem
argument very similar to " have you stopped beating your wife". And
your last post is much of the same thing. You need to use real
agruments. If you were on a high school debate team, you would lose
with such posts.

So now I have told you. You look stupid so much of the time with what
you post.

You're just now coming to that conclusion? I think most of the rest of us
plonked him last spring.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.

I read it. It was a library book so I scanned the bibliography and the
graph-source list, if you should need it (23 pp, 1.8 MB *.tif file in MS
Document Imaging format). There are several book sources I'm going to
pursue. I also read a couple of the articles referenced and two online
critiques of the book itself.

I have to tell you that I don't like Crichton's writing but he does know how
to write a good page-turner. I was fun fiction. It's also a very interesting
polemic with a lot of information about how to be a good skeptic. d8-)

Since I have almost no knowledge of climatology, none of the technical
articles I've read have been of any help to me, except to help evaluate the
truthfulness of opposing sources in terms of what they claim the opposition
is saying. So this is a good opposing source. But that's a hell of a lousy
way to form an opinion about anything. I still have almost no opinion about
the entire topic.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:56:34 -0800, SteveB wrote:

What's the big deal about beating your wife? I beat mine. Every once in a
while, she gets out the mayonnaise, rubber gloves, tennis balls, the
upstairs French maid outfit, and we go to town. Sure, she screams a lot,
but it's part of the fantasy.

We're thinking of changing to Miracle Whip Low Fat Lite, though.

Miracle Whip? (shudders). Pervert. That crap is made by DuPont.

Sheesh.

Oh, indeed.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:30:39 -0800, SteveB wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Miracle Whip? (shudders). Pervert. That crap is made by DuPont.

Well, nothing like trying something new once in a while.

OK, sorry, good point. Let me know how that works for you.

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:43:56 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

When have I made them before? Be specific. Use as much whitespace as
necessary.

Hint...Non PC commentary is not to be confused with mindless drivel.
For that, I leave to you.

Ill be waiting with bated breath for your response.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know EXACTLY when.

So you are admitting you are unable to provide any factual data to
back up your claim. Thats rather stupid of you.

And you can easily google if you want to refresh your failing memory.

Just like the authorities can.

Remember that Mr. Gunner...when you consider whether or not you wish
to continue to keep your guns.

TMT

You should be hung by the neck until you stop twitching, your face
turns black, your tongue protudes and then left swaying in the wind
for the ravens to peck out your eyes, and your skull filled with
maggots.


How is that any different than any other Friday at "Too Mangy Fools"
place?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:56:34 -0800, SteveB
wrote:

What's the big deal about beating your wife? I beat mine. Every once in
a
while, she gets out the mayonnaise, rubber gloves, tennis balls, the
upstairs French maid outfit, and we go to town. Sure, she screams a lot,
but it's part of the fantasy.

We're thinking of changing to Miracle Whip Low Fat Lite, though.

Miracle Whip? (shudders). Pervert. That crap is made by DuPont.

Sheesh.

Oh, indeed.

Well, nothing like trying something new once in a while.

Steve

On Dec 14, 4:27 am, Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:43:56 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:

Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

When have I made them before? Be specific. Use as much whitespace as
necessary.

Hint...Non PC commentary is not to be confused with mindless drivel.
For that, I leave to you.

Ill be waiting with bated breath for your response.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know EXACTLY when.

So you are admitting you are unable to provide any factual data to
back up your claim. Thats rather stupid of you.



And you can easily google if you want to refresh your failing memory.

Just like the authorities can.

Remember that Mr. Gunner...when you consider whether or not you wish
to continue to keep your guns.

TMT

You should be hung by the neck until you stop twitching, your face
turns black, your tongue protudes and then left swaying in the wind
for the ravens to peck out your eyes, and your skull filled with
maggots.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unable..or unwilling... to use Google Gunner?

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Keep it up...each and every word you type is available to law
enforcement.

And your guns...and your freedom.....can be gone in an
instance..thanks to the Patriot Act..

TMT

On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:21 am, " wrote:

On Dec 13, 3:15 am, Too_Many_Tools

Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

too many tools.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet.
Dan

Interesting that you bring that subject up Dan.

So...you beat your wife Dan?

Otherwise why would you blurt that comment out?

I believe domestic abuse can be used for cause which can result in
loss of one's weapons.

So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

TMT

The reason I posted that was you previous post. An ad hominem
argument very similar to " have you stopped beating your wife". And
your last post is much of the same thing. You need to use real
agruments. If you were on a high school debate team, you would lose
with such posts.

So now I have told you. You look stupid so much of the time with what
you post.

Dan

What's the big deal about beating your wife? I beat mine. Every once in a
while, she gets out the mayonnaise, rubber gloves, tennis balls, the
upstairs French maid outfit, and we go to town. Sure, she screams a lot,
but it's part of the fantasy.

We're thinking of changing to Miracle Whip Low Fat Lite, though.

Sheesh.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Does she scream in French?

I would recommend whipped cream...with a cheery if needed.


TMT

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT

On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement what leaving a car
unlocked means to them when it is stolen.

Allowing a firearm to be used by unauthorized personnel is the same
thing.

TMT

On Dec 14, 5:10 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , " wrote:

On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

TMT

The reason I posted that was you previous post. An ad hominem
argument very similar to " have you stopped beating your wife". And
your last post is much of the same thing. You need to use real
agruments. If you were on a high school debate team, you would lose
with such posts.

So now I have told you. You look stupid so much of the time with what
you post.

You're just now coming to that conclusion? I think most of the rest of us
plonked him last spring.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug has the hots for me....typical Republican wanting what he cannot
have.

How's the stance Doug..wide enough yet?

TMT

On Dec 14, 5:58 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...

snip

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.

I read it. It was a library book so I scanned the bibliography and the
graph-source list, if you should need it (23 pp, 1.8 MB *.tif file in MS
Document Imaging format). There are several book sources I'm going to
pursue. I also read a couple of the articles referenced and two online
critiques of the book itself.

I have to tell you that I don't like Crichton's writing but he does know how
to write a good page-turner. I was fun fiction. It's also a very interesting
polemic with a lot of information about how to be a good skeptic. d8-)

Since I have almost no knowledge of climatology, none of the technical
articles I've read have been of any help to me, except to help evaluate the
truthfulness of opposing sources in terms of what they claim the opposition
is saying. So this is a good opposing source. But that's a hell of a lousy
way to form an opinion about anything. I still have almost no opinion about
the entire topic.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed....I am impressed.

It is a wise man who waits until the facts are in.

TMT

On Dec 14, 10:31 am, " wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Dec 13, 9:21 am, " wrote:

On Dec 13, 3:15 am, Too_Many_Tools

Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

too many tools.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet.
Dan

Interesting that you bring that subject up Dan.

So...you beat your wife Dan?

Otherwise why would you blurt that comment out?

I believe domestic abuse can be used for cause which can result in
loss of one's weapons.

So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

TMT

The reason I posted that was you previous post. An ad hominem
argument very similar to " have you stopped beating your wife". And
your last post is much of the same thing. You need to use real
agruments. If you were on a high school debate team, you would lose
with such posts.

So now I have told you. You look stupid so much of the time with what
you post.

Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sound nervous Dan...hey...once you let the genie out of the bottle
there is no putting it back.

Just bear in mind that it is now public record.

Enjoy your guns...while you still have them.

TMT

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT


Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

Gunner

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:30:39 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:56:34 -0800, SteveB
wrote:

What's the big deal about beating your wife? I beat mine. Every once in
a
while, she gets out the mayonnaise, rubber gloves, tennis balls, the
upstairs French maid outfit, and we go to town. Sure, she screams a lot,
but it's part of the fantasy.

We're thinking of changing to Miracle Whip Low Fat Lite, though.

Miracle Whip? (shudders). Pervert. That crap is made by DuPont.

Sheesh.

Oh, indeed.

Well, nothing like trying something new once in a while.

Steve

Try Velveeta. The clean up is difficult..but the stiction you can
develope....huhuh good!!

Gunner

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:14:31 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 4:27 am, Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:43:56 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:

Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

When have I made them before? Be specific. Use as much whitespace as
necessary.

Hint...Non PC commentary is not to be confused with mindless drivel.
For that, I leave to you.

Ill be waiting with bated breath for your response.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know EXACTLY when.

So you are admitting you are unable to provide any factual data to
back up your claim. Thats rather stupid of you.



And you can easily google if you want to refresh your failing memory.

Just like the authorities can.

Remember that Mr. Gunner...when you consider whether or not you wish
to continue to keep your guns.

TMT

You should be hung by the neck until you stop twitching, your face
turns black, your tongue protudes and then left swaying in the wind
for the ravens to peck out your eyes, and your skull filled with
maggots.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unable..or unwilling... to use Google Gunner?

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Still waiting.


Keep it up...each and every word you type is available to law
enforcement.

You should be taken to a public place, lifted up and a 10' sharpened
stake should be inserted in your anus, then you should be slowly
lowered until its firmly in your intestines. Then left for all the
people to watch your frantic scrambling's and mewling's, until
ultimately, the stake exists through some portion of your body and you
die slowly and in great agony over a period of many many hours.

And your guns...and your freedom.....can be gone in an
instance..thanks to the Patriot Act..

TMT


Still waiting

Gunner

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:28:37 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 10:31 am, " wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:47 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Dec 13, 9:21 am, " wrote:

On Dec 13, 3:15 am, Too_Many_Tools

Made any more death threats lately Gunner?

TMT

too many tools.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet.
Dan

Interesting that you bring that subject up Dan.

So...you beat your wife Dan?

Otherwise why would you blurt that comment out?

I believe domestic abuse can be used for cause which can result in
loss of one's weapons.

So Dan...do you have something you want to tell us?

TMT

The reason I posted that was you previous post. An ad hominem
argument very similar to " have you stopped beating your wife". And
your last post is much of the same thing. You need to use real
agruments. If you were on a high school debate team, you would lose
with such posts.

So now I have told you. You look stupid so much of the time with what
you post.

Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You sound nervous Dan...hey...once you let the genie out of the bottle
there is no putting it back.

Just bear in mind that it is now public record.

Enjoy your guns...while you still have them.

TMT


Im still waiting.

Gunner

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:41:22 -0500, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

They've probably never consummated. Jim is really an alien, anyway.


I agree on the alien part but they did consumate, they have two children and
don't talk politics at home.

Wes


But are they JIMS children?

Gunner

In article , Gunner wrote:

Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

*Please* stop feeding the troll.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...

snip

It is a wise man who waits until the facts are in.

I don't know if we'll have the facts until after the fact on this one. And
when is "after the fact"? The goal lines keep moving.

You can tell something about people by the position they take on the global
warming issue. I doubt if 1:10,000 have the special knowledge required to
make any kind of "judgment" based on the facts. If they have an opinion, all
they're telling us is that they're inclined to agree with one group of
scientists or another, and there really is almost NO basis on which to
decide which group of them is right.

I shake my head that someone like Al Gore could gain notoriety for his
political position on global warming. He's a smart guy but I'm sure he's
little more than an idiot on climatology algorithms and predictability of
computer models.

If this issue wasn't so political and philosophically charged, with such
huge stakes involved, I'd simply go with the majority of legitimate experts.
In fact, in terms of policy, that's the best course of action, IMO. But not
without a big dose of trepidation. And not with any confidence that anything
we can do will make a damned bit of difference.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:25:20 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement what leaving a car
unlocked means to them when it is stolen.

It means nothing to them, other than as a statistic.

Allowing a firearm to be used by unauthorized personnel is the same
thing

and just as ambiguous.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:34:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT


Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

Gunner

It means nothing at all to him other than as a swell hotbutton for
trolling.

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:28:30
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:42:44 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:51:51
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I thought so, too. It's a book which kicked my perceptions up a notch
and made me look around a bit more at the crap the environmental
terrorists are pulling.

Indeed,

Now go take your beauty rest, eh?

Be well.


Ive not been home since the week before thanksgiving, nor had a day
off since thanksgiving, but for the last weekend.

What I really really need now..is to get well and truely laid.

It is not Passover, so why should today be any different than any
other day?

It is a good cardio-vascular workout though.

Indeed.

Exercise partners have been few and far between recently.

Ah yes. The old time/money trade off. When you have the time, you
haven't the money; when you have the money, you haven't the time.

Obviously, I haven't any money.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Months Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.

On Dec 10, 4:23 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

et...





In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for
protection
against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it
makes
little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly
dangerous
pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion
here
a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in
the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've
chosen to stay where the danger is.

Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence
in
the US.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??
The combined population of those three towns is 49,158.

My point exactly: you *don't* have to be in the most dangerous parts of
the
most dangerous cities for stuff like that to happen.

Well, what are you arguing with? I said that it makes no sense
statistically. And then I showed you the numbers on your examples. If you're
living your life on one-in-a-million probabilities, Doug, you should be
investing heavily in the lottery.

According to the NSC, your chances of being killed in a firearm assault are
1:324. Your chances of dying from accidental poisoning are twice as high.
Your chances of dying from taking a fall are nearly twice as high as dying
in a firearm assault, and your chance of dying in a car accident are four
times as high.

I don't feel the *need* to carry a gun for the same reason I don't feel the
*need* to hire someone to taste my food before eating, or to have myself
fitted with springs to prevent injury in a fall, or to have a NASCAR-type
roll cage installed in my family sedan.

Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.



That's 1.63 * 10^-4
of the US population and the shootings you're talking about are spread out
over a period of just over 10 years at three distant locations. I think
that
falls deeply into the "most extreme and remote possibilities" category.

You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. I mentioned those only because
they
were the first three that sprang to mind. If those were the only such
events
of the last ten years, then you'd have a point. They're not, and you know
it.

How many more such examples do you want to add to the list? You asked me if
I pay attention to the news and then you gave examples of wacko mass
murders. Did you intend to give examples of something else? Because the
wacko mass murders are too rare to bother about.

If you're going to start adding up all of the individual reasons for having
a gun, then pay attention to the other things I said. I said the legitimate
reason for carrying a gun is self-defense, not preventing mass murders,
because you'll never get a chance in your lifetime, or in 10,000 lifetimes,
to encounter one of those. And I said that your chances of needing a gun in
any case are so vanishingly small that it makes no sense, statistically,
unless you choose to live or work somewhere dangerous.

But purely rational odds-making is not the only issue on self-defense. If
you want to carry, by all means, carry. I was responding to the OP who
wondered why we have to carry guns to go out for milk. And my response is,
we don't have to carry. Statistically, there is little rational basis for
carring a gun, unless we stupidly get our milk in dangerous places. As Don
said, and as I've experienced, most people have almost no chance of ever
encountering a drawn gun except on a shooting range. And that's the fact.







If, to be generous, 100 people at each location actually saw what was
going
on, and assuming even more generously that each one of them could have
done
something about it, that's 1/1,000,000 of the US population who, if they
were armed, in position to shoot, and actually *did* shoot, might have
intervened on one occassion in ten years. Whether they would have been
successful is another question entirely.

I wasn't arguing with you over the likelihood of an armed citizen being
able
to stop such an event. I'm just objecting to your egregiously, absurdly
false
claim that such dangers are confined to "the dangerous parts of our most
dangerous cities." Certainly they are more common there, but manifestly
they
are not *unique* there.

I didn't say they're confined there. I said that, except for such dangerous
places, it makes little sense statistically. And that's the fact, too.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Very good post Ed.

TMT

On Dec 15, 10:21 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:25:20 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement what leaving a car
unlocked means to them when it is stolen.

It means nothing to them, other than as a statistic.



Allowing a firearm to be used by unauthorized personnel is the same
thing

and just as ambiguous. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are wrong Don...and your response tells me that you should ask
them.

TMT

On Dec 15, 10:29 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:34:32 -0800, Gunner





wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT

Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

Gunner

It means nothing at all to him other than as a swell hotbutton for
trolling. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You could not be more wrong Don.

You might want to step back and reexamine your responses...their
content is departing from your normal well balanced and thought out
nature.


TMT

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:07:10 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 15, 10:21 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:25:20 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement what leaving a car
unlocked means to them when it is stolen.

It means nothing to them, other than as a statistic.



Allowing a firearm to be used by unauthorized personnel is the same
thing

and just as ambiguous. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are wrong Don...and your response tells me that you should ask
them.

TMT

Wrong about which, the unlocked car or the ambiguity? I'm clear
about the matter of secured firearms because I did check. I'd
reported activity of a door-to-door scammer, a cop came to check it
out. We musta spent an hour chatting and visiting about this 'n that.
He showed me his, I showed him mine. We discussed shooting, guns, and
proper security of same, along with familiarization with and
demystification of guns for children at appropriate age to appropriate
level.

It's quite clear that you've been deprived of such, because you (and
many others) don't seem to understand that guns in responsible hands
are effective instruments for keeping peace and curbing violence.

I don't need nor seek to win an online argument here. If what I have
to share doesn't work for you, feel free to ignore.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:10:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 15, 10:29 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:34:32 -0800, Gunner





wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT

Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

Gunner

It means nothing at all to him other than as a swell hotbutton for
trolling. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You could not be more wrong Don.

You might want to step back and reexamine your responses...their
content is departing from your normal well balanced and thought out
nature.

OK, I did. You might want to do likewise. I see far more flame than
rational thought, and about no original thinking in your rhetoric
here. It's a ****ing contest, not a debate.

Patronize me at your peril. I try hard to be civil and even polite.

On Dec 17, 1:47 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:10:45 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:29 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:34:32 -0800, Gunner

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:23:19 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 14, 2:31 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Especially Politicians and badge-toters.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Not very bloody likely!

You seem to forget that more people die from illness, automobiles, old age,
etc., than from any weapon usage.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

Most Pshrinks are nuts - are you REALLY saying that you want a nutcase to
be the one that makes the decision?

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Given the co$t of firearms these days, the penalty for Grand Theft already
applies since UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS denotes theft.

Are you REALLY saying that the person whose firearm, knife, ball bat, hunk
of rebar, 2x4, etc. was stolen should be IMPRISONED or FINED? If so, you
must be a Pshrink.

We are talking about responsible gun ownership.

You ARE for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, aren't you?

Don't PLAY the game unless you can PAY admission.

TMT

Responsible gun ownership to an antigunner such as TooFew, is placing
your firearms in the middle of 20 cubic food of wet concrete and
watching it dry.

Gunner

It means nothing at all to him other than as a swell hotbutton for
trolling. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You could not be more wrong Don.

You might want to step back and reexamine your responses...their
content is departing from your normal well balanced and thought out
nature.

OK, I did. You might want to do likewise. I see far more flame than
rational thought, and about no original thinking in your rhetoric
here. It's a ****ing contest, not a debate.

Patronize me at your peril. I try hard to be civil and even polite.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps clarification of my position is in order.

I too try hard to be civil and polite...my past postings demonstrate
that.

I also tolerate considerable BS...one has to in order to survive with
some of the fools found on Usenet.

But I suffer fools poorly....as can be seen by some responses that I
have posted to some of the resident idiots that hang out in Usenet
land.

I do not consider you to be one of them...now or in the past.

As I was pointing out earlier, some of your posts are departing from
your normal reasonable and well thought out efforts which I have
looked forward to reading in the past.

If you have a problem with me, so be it...while it pains me since I
value your opinion I also know that all of us have blind spots...and
perhaps gun rights is one of yours.

I am for responsible gun ownership...and with that comes the
accountability for ownership of a firearm.

Your opinon may differ from mine.

Many gun owners want to own without being held accountable.

The continuing bloodshed in this country tells us that this society
needs to change to permit ownership while preventing unnecessary
deaths.

We can both be part of the solution or part of the problem.

Looking forward to your continued contributions to this discussion
group.

TMT

On Dec 17, 1:39 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:07:10 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:21 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:25:20 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools

wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:14 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in news:a927ebf6-a114-4c4f-
:

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

Brilliant! Concealment or a locked storage space is clear evidence of
intent to deny access rather than allow it.

If you leave your car unlocked, someone steals it and injures someone
with it, how about you do some hard time?

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement what leaving a car
unlocked means to them when it is stolen.

It means nothing to them, other than as a statistic.

Allowing a firearm to be used by unauthorized personnel is the same
thing

and just as ambiguous. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are wrong Don...and your response tells me that you should ask
them.

TMT

Wrong about which, the unlocked car or the ambiguity? I'm clear
about the matter of secured firearms because I did check. I'd
reported activity of a door-to-door scammer, a cop came to check it
out. We musta spent an hour chatting and visiting about this 'n that.
He showed me his, I showed him mine. We discussed shooting, guns, and
proper security of same, along with familiarization with and
demystification of guns for children at appropriate age to appropriate
level.

It's quite clear that you've been deprived of such, because you (and
many others) don't seem to understand that guns in responsible hands
are effective instruments for keeping peace and curbing violence.

I don't need nor seek to win an online argument here. If what I have
to share doesn't work for you, feel free to ignore. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand completely that guns in responsible hands are effective
instruments for keeping peace and curbing violence.

The problem is that many guns are not in responsible hands.

The ever increasing civilian body count is simple evidence of that.

Any solutions?

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
news:3770872c-b8ef-4aa1-89e8- I understand completely that guns in
responsible hands are effective
The problem is that many guns are not in responsible hands.
Any solutions?

TMT

Call the FBI ?
A vehicle loaded with guns, ammunition and other crime-fighting gear
belonging to the Federal Bureau of Investigation was stolen from a motel
parking lot here on Monday night in a crime that threatens to be acutely
embarrassing to the agency.

The burned shell of the vehicle was found early today in an industrial area
of the city, according to John W. Hancock of the bureau's Memphis office.
Missing were about a dozen weapons, including M-16 rifles and a shotgun,
plus tear-gas equipment, ammunition, bulletproof vests, helmets and shields
with agency insignia, Mr. Hancock said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9619582 60

Two of the guns were subsequently used in armed robberies, a third
apparently became a murder weapon after being stolen from the home of an FBI
agent in New Orleans.
Officials say the problem is the result of faulty paperwork.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2176412.stm

Call the ATF ?

When the ATF came up short 152 firearms in one inventory, they simply erased
the weapons from their computer records without investigation, according to
an April 16, 1995, Gannett News Service report.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revoluti...ce/erased.html

Best Regards
Tom.

On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:25:07 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

The continuing bloodshed in this country tells us that this society
needs to change to permit ownership while preventing unnecessary
deaths.


You are refering to the declining bloodshed in this country, ne?

Gunner

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:29:27 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


- Show quoted text -

I understand completely that guns in responsible hands are effective
instruments for keeping peace and curbing violence.

The problem is that many guns are not in responsible hands.

The ever increasing civilian body count is simple evidence of that.

Any solutions?

TMT


Yes, get your facts straight, and dont get them from your favorite
anti-gun organizations.

The "civlian body count" is declining, and has been for a number of
years.

Your ignorance and bias continue to be noted with contempt.

Gunner