"Lawrence Wasserman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
toller wrote:


As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability,
saying,
"Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."

It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for
30
years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
knives, but never on the big ones.
If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
crimes of passion; why not?



Lets not forget that we would have to license and register the owners
and users of grinders and sharpening devices of all types. lest they
illegally convert round-nosed knives to pointed ones.


Will parliment try to hold the manufacturers of knives reponsible should a
knife be used to commit a crime? That's what NY state wants to do with guns

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
.. .
Greetings and Salutations....


But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.
I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America.

Regards
Dave Mundt


Dave

You're right. after a day of shooting I had a full box of 22's in the car.
Not wanting them to spill I put the box in my briefcase and forgot it. A few
weeks later I flew from Newark to Ohare. Through security both ways with the
full box. They even did a routine nitrate check on the way back at Ohare.
Looking through the case a few days later I discovered the 22's and called
Newark security and the Newark police to report the lapse. I was told I'd
get a call back. It came 3 weeks later. I should say they have removed nail
clippers and screw driver on other flights. Makes me feel safe

Ken

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" wrote:

In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
clubs.

Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" ****ry.
Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
hoodies and the like.
Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
police....
Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
allow them for target shooting again!

Niel.

Dave in Fairfax wrote:
I'm more worried about my mechanics tools, 'specially the 3/4' and 1"
drives. My turning tools come to mind. Wood splitting equipment,
chainsaws, pry bars, and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.

Dave in Fairfax

My recovery gear in the 4x4 is bad enough, axe, machete, crow/pry bar,
entrenching tool (a favourite weapon in the former eastern block)....

Don't think the local asses have much of a jaw bone, bunch of chinless
wonders the lot of them!

Niel.

mike hide wrote:

The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
into law around 1680.

In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago

Dunblane, Scotland, multiple murders of school children with multi-shot
handguns, the right to carry a firearm for self protection was
effectively removed many years before by Home Office/Police colusion in
not issuing firearms certificates for self protection, the phrase "as
allowed by law" is important here.

Now only the crooks have guns which they use liberally . Since the
individual no longer is allow to have a gun, gun crimes have
skyrocketed....mjh

The influx of foreign criminals has accelerated it, but yes it was a
growing trend anyway. As is assualt and murder by youths who've been
"diss'd" by other yoofs and a growing number of older people.
Your safer holidaying in the states than London, let alone Manchester
(known locally as gunchester)....

Take a look at:
http://www.cybershooters.org/
Gives a better idea perhaps.

Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(

Badger wrote:
Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" ****ry.
Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
hoodies and the like.
Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
police....
Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
allow them for target shooting again!

Niel.

I should have added:

The "false and designing" man of the 1990s, Tony Blair MP, who got
himself elected as Prime Minister in part by scapegoating 57,000
innocent law-abiding people for the crimes of one madman in his speech
at the 1996 Labour Party Conference.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:41:06 GMT, Badger wrote:

Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(

Come on over, I've got one of those... groups about 3" at 25 yards; not
bad for GI issue everything.

Well said.

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
.. .
Now that we have had several years of these unconstitutional
collections, and, the Feds have displayed (with amazing pride) the
millions of nail files, blunt scissors and other items that they
have collected "to make travel safer", I wonder if anyone has
considered (or cares) that before 9/11 travellers were carrying
all these and more lethal items, yet, how many incidents of
folks being attacked and wounded or killed on airline flights
where there? How many flights have been hijacked by idiots
wielding blunt scissors, nail-files or zippo lighters?
But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.
I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America. It is also getting us used to the
idea of random searches as being acceptable and normal...part of
that slippery slope towards totalitarianism that America seems
to be on. I could be wrong, and, it could be that these
unreasonable searches and siezures have foiled a number of
hijack plots involving nail files and blunt scissors...but I doubt
it.
About the only thing that I can see that has really helped
the situation is the increased quality of the door and partition
between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Making it impossible
(or at least very difficult) to get in there to take over the
controls goes a long way towards changing the threat of a hijacking.
The bottom line is that there was a time, not that long
ago, when travel in America was a pleasure and a recreation. Now,
though, it is a difficult chore that few folks look forewards to
getting caught up in. That, I think, is a sad fact that means
that the terrorists DID win.
Over this past Memorial Day holiday, I spent some time
meditating on the sacrifices made by so many Americans both for
this country and for countries around the world. I can only
hope that the citizens of today will, somehow, have it dawn
on them that security is not the responsibility of the government,
but the responsiblity of every citizen. We need to take back
responsibility and not push it off on the Feds, as that is the
only way America can survive and stay on a positive track.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:43:11 GMT, Badger
wrote:

Badger wrote:
Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" ****ry.
Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
hoodies and the like.
Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
police....
Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
allow them for target shooting again!

Niel.

I should have added:

The "false and designing" man of the 1990s, Tony Blair MP, who got
himself elected as Prime Minister in part by scapegoating 57,000
innocent law-abiding people for the crimes of one madman in his speech
at the 1996 Labour Party Conference.

For those of us not in the UK, what's the 2 sentence summary of said
event and what law was passed against the 57k law-abiding people?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Greetings and Salutations....

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:35:10 -0400, "firstjois"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
[snip]

Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?"
wondered LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue
in cheek, but still ....

What is tongue in cheek about this? My two-inch elementary school scissors
were taken last time I went on an airplane. The ends were no more pointy
than the non-business end of a ballpoint pen. "Dangerous" was what I was
told. If I'd been wearing open-toed shoes would they have made me clip (or
remove) my toenails?

Josie


Now that we have had several years of these unconstitutional
collections, and, the Feds have displayed (with amazing pride) the
millions of nail files, blunt scissors and other items that they
have collected "to make travel safer", I wonder if anyone has
considered (or cares) that before 9/11 travellers were carrying
all these and more lethal items, yet, how many incidents of
folks being attacked and wounded or killed on airline flights
where there? How many flights have been hijacked by idiots
wielding blunt scissors, nail-files or zippo lighters?

I've said this since 9/12 -- it's just another example of the government
learning the wrong lesson and applying the wrong solution to the problem.


But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.

Had an event like this occurred after the founding of the country (or even
less than 100 years ago), your solution would have been that advocated by
the country's leaders. However, at that time we had real leaders who
understood that their right to govern rested in the hands of the people and
not that the rights of the people rested in the hands of the government.



I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America.

Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

It is also getting us used to the
idea of random searches as being acceptable and normal...part of
that slippery slope towards totalitarianism that America seems
to be on. I could be wrong, and, it could be that these
unreasonable searches and siezures have foiled a number of
hijack plots involving nail files and blunt scissors...but I doubt
it.

That started years ago with instilling the idea that random searches were
OK in schools, getting the youngsters used to the idea that checking them
out for their own safety was a good idea. OTOH, this whole concept was
exacerbated and initiated by the actions of those from the drug culture of
the 60's who used their freedom to mask activities detrimental to our
country's youth.



About the only thing that I can see that has really helped
the situation is the increased quality of the door and partition
between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Making it impossible
(or at least very difficult) to get in there to take over the
controls goes a long way towards changing the threat of a hijacking.

Yep, it gives the rest of the passengers time to get to the nuts before
they can cause problems. As several instances following 9/11 showed,
although our government didn't get it, the *citizens* did get it. It
wasn't that some nutbars got on the plane with weapons that caused the
mayhem, it was the fact that citizens had been conditioned and told by
their leaders and others in authority that when in the situation of a
hijacking (or other crime for that matter), one should not fight the
criminals doing the hijacking, but submit -- that way noone, or only a few
would be hurt. The citizens figured out after 9/11 that that was a
bald-faced lie (if it ever was true), and you can pretty well rest assured
that in the future should such a stunt be attempted again, the passengers
of those planes will use whatever means are in their possession, no matter
how they have been disarmed by the government, to protect themselves and
prevent the hijackers from achieving their objective. That is what I meant
by the government learning the wrong lesson.

The bottom line is that there was a time, not that long
ago, when travel in America was a pleasure and a recreation. Now,
though, it is a difficult chore that few folks look forewards to
getting caught up in. That, I think, is a sad fact that means
that the terrorists DID win.

I used to love flying. Now I absolutely hate it and will do whatever I
can to avoid it. Actually, I still like flying, I just hate getting to the
airplane. I'm one of those balding middle-aged white guys who seems to
get singled out for the "random" search almost whenever I fly (I think I'm
at about 75%). My theory is that they "randomly" search x number of people
like me, a few 90 year old grandmothers, some toddlers, and some elderly
people in wheelchairs so that they can search 1 person who actually looks
like a potential threat in order to avoid being accused of profiling (but
then I'm probably just being paranoid). If the trip would take 10 hours or
less to drive, I pretty much prefer to drive.

Over this past Memorial Day holiday, I spent some time
meditating on the sacrifices made by so many Americans both for
this country and for countries around the world. I can only
hope that the citizens of today will, somehow, have it dawn
on them that security is not the responsibility of the government,
but the responsiblity of every citizen. We need to take back
responsibility and not push it off on the Feds, as that is the
only way America can survive and stay on a positive track.

Yep.

Regards
Dave Mundt





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:17:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America.

Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

You mean the ones carrying the unloaded M16s? Some of the ones I saw
didn't even bother to stuff in an empty magazine.

Lee

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:50:49 -0700, Lee DeRaud
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:17:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America.

Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

You mean the ones carrying the unloaded M16s? Some of the ones I saw
didn't even bother to stuff in an empty magazine.


Yep, them's the ones.

Lee



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:31:24 GMT, Badger
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" wrote:

In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
clubs.

Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" ****ry.
Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
hoodies and the like.
Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
police....
Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
allow them for target shooting again!

On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
cold tea!

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
spake:

On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
cold tea!

No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause
drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA
never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!


------------------------------------------------------------
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
--------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the security
is worth that much.

Josie

Greetings and Salutations....
Of course, I had a thought about a paragraph
or two to add WELL after I hit the "send" button - So
here it is:

Along with everything else, there has been a
sea change in the minds of air travellers, thanks
to 9/11. For the 30 years or so of hijackings before
9/11, the rule was that the hijackers only wanted to
get someplace else...so if everyone hung tight,
the worst thing that would happen would be that they
would spend a day or so in a Havana airport. So...
for everyone, the attitude was to take it easy and
go along with the hijackers. The terrorists of
9/11, though, changed the rules completely. Now,
the attitude is that any hijacker is going to
be using the plane for a weapon...so no one has
anything MORE to lose, and, so will react
appropriately. That is an apple that one only
gets ONE bite at...and they took it, so, instead
of a plane full of passive passengers, from now
on, hijackers will be facing a plane filled with
really ticked off enemies who are not going to
let something like this happen without challenge.
Interestingly enough, though (and getting
back to the strange thought patterns of the governement
here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/fbi_opposes_air_mobiles/
Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media
as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is
made. In any case, I see it as yet another example
of the government callously using the events of 9/11
to promote their internal agenda of complete and total
control.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:41:06 GMT, Badger wrote:


Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(


Come on over, I've got one of those... groups about 3" at 25 yards; not
bad for GI issue everything.

Thanks for the invite Dave, one day, one day....

Niel.

charlie b wrote:

LRod wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"

Yes, I actually have said that for nearly 40 years.

The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
considered a violence enabler in the future.

Maybe in the past. Nowadays they'll arrest him as a terrorist and
process him under the Patriot Act (should be called the Kafka Act).

--
LRod

Get it while you can folks - The Pointy Stick Compendium Project

http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/...OfContent.html

As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

I propose a compromise gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway. If you're worried about mulltiple
assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
size suggested.

Same rule for the police? After all, with all their training they should
only need one shot shouldn't they? And I guess that they should quit
teaching police the double-tap?

And I presume from your comment about size that you favor legalizing open
carry?

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Define "armor piercing bullet" in such a way that it does not subsume the
majority of bullets.

charlie b
donning his Poo Suit

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , says...
As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.

As if there was any real difference in practice. That's akin to saying
it's ok to let people have hammers, but we're going to have to ban nails.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
made a reality.

I propose a compromise gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it

Which obviously renders it useless.

and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway.

Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
there's very little time to do so.


If you're worried about mulltiple
assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
size suggested.

Obviously making you an even easier target, encumbered by all that
hardware. No, one large-capacity semiautomatic handgun would be a much
more practical method of defending against multiple assailants.

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Defense against
a) criminals wearing body armor
b) invading foreign troops
c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above

and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:15:46 -0400, the inscrutable "firstjois"
spake:

And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the security
is worth that much.

Would you like that figure rounded to the nearest billion dollars?
sigh


------------------------------------------------------------
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
--------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:22:32 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

.... snip of some stuff I said too
Interestingly enough, though (and getting
back to the strange thought patterns of the governement
here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/fbi_opposes_air_mobiles/
Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media
as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is
made. In any case, I see it as yet another example
of the government callously using the events of 9/11
to promote their internal agenda of complete and total
control.
Regards
Dave Mundt

You know, I was going to tell you that the concerns about terrorists
using cell phones on planes to coordinate with one another has been in the
US, including such places as Aviation Leak. Then I went to the web page
you cited -- you are right *that* hasn't been on any of the media outlets
here in the US. Given the anti-administration, flat out anti-US (see
Newsweek for example) bent of the press, that's pretty strange.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 05:52:45 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
spake:

On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
cold tea!

No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause
drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA
never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!

It sure seems like it's on it's way some days. I remember when I was
a little kid (not so long ago, really) we had rusty steel jungle gyms
set over asphalt at school, and liked to shoot one another with bb
guns on the weekends. Imagine the lawsuits that would ensue if any of
that was still going on today.

The message
from "mike hide" contains these words:



The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
into law around 1680.

In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago

England and Scotland have different legal systems. And I take it you
meant Dunblane.

But guns had to be licensed before anyway, and only the tiniest
fraction of the population in the UK have the slightest interest in
owning a gun of any sort and those who would want a handgun are a mere
"handful".

Now, the ban on kids owning pocket knives is something that does make
life difficult for guys -- can't even buy a Stanley knife or chisel!

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:15:33 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , says...

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
made a reality.

Right. If guns (and bullets) are for killing, I must be using all of
mine wrong. Anyone have a cite on how many rounds of ammo are produced
in the US in a year, vs. the number of murders using a gun?

I propose a compromise gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it

Which obviously renders it useless.

Well, that's not the biggest problem - it comes down to the fact that
the criminals are already doing something illegal, and will just add a
possession crime to the other things they're doing wrong. Criminals, by
definition, _ignore laws_. That's why/because they're criminals, y'see.

and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway.

Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
there's very little time to do so.

Not to mention the above problem about criminals and laws.

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Defense against
a) criminals wearing body armor
b) invading foreign troops
c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above
and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.

Well, OK, but that's not the only reason. Another reason is that you
can define "armor piercing" as pretty much any rifle bullet, and many
handgun bullets. Then, you just have to outlaw "expanding, flesh
ripping bullets", and you've got everything banned.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime, they won't be dissuaded from
doing so by the fact that they're using a bullet that is or isn't of any
particular variety. Last I checked, not a lot of them are into the
intricacies of ballistics.

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
LRod wrote:

SNIP

As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

AH yes - then we can be like Japan where the guy on the street does not have
guns but the gangsters do . . .

SNIP

"Dave in Fairfax" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives,
probably
followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
clubs.

I'm more worried about my mechanics tools, 'specially the 3/4' and 1"
drives. My turning tools come to mind. Wood splitting equipment,
chainsaws, pry bars, and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.

Dave in Fairfax
--

Can I see that 3/4 foot drive??????? ('specially the 3/4' )

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21:01 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
wrote:

"toller" writes:


[...]

SNIP

Yeah, neither one of *those* knives could do any damage to someone during
a "crime of passion". Seems that someone who is angry and seeking to do
mayhem would not be deterred by the lack of a sharp point. I can see it
now, person in rage, rummaging through kitchen drawer, "Where are those
points, dang it! Ah well, guess I'll just have to enroll in anger
management instead. Sorry honey, please forgive me." Far more likely
they
will grab one of the above and use it in a slicing motion about various
important body parts of the victim. As the second item above indicated,
"... have blades with a straight cutting edge and a shape similar to early
*Japanese swords* (dating from the Nara period). ... and are truly razor
sharp." Nope, no chance of serious damage there.

I'm amazed that there are people who actually see this idea as a
rational
response to violence. The fact that one person may not have used the
point
in years of using chef's knives does not mean that no others do. In my
original posting, the link indicated that there were a number of English
chefs (recognizing of course the oxymoron in the preceding) who felt that
this was an essential tool being taken away from them.

In Japan the guy on the street cannot own a gun - murder is rare by guns to
say the least - knives and all other manner of other "impliments" are used
however - during the bubble in Japan a "agressive" realitor who could not
get some people to move so he could sell the property killed them and ground
them up with an industrial size meat grinder to get rid of the bodies -

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

SNIP

"firstjois" wrote in message
...
And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the
security
is worth that much.

I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
sure -

BillyB

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

BillyBob wrote:
Can I see that 3/4 foot drive??????? ('specially the 3/4' )

I caught between an "Oops, my bad." and some joke about it being for
private viewing only and not by people named BillyBob. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

BillyBob wrote:
In Japan the guy on the street cannot own a gun - murder is rare by guns to
say the least - knives and all other manner of other "impliments" are used
however - during the bubble in Japan a "agressive" realitor who could not
get some people to move so he could sell the property killed them and ground
them up with an industrial size meat grinder to get rid of the bodies -

See, guns don't kill people, realtors do.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
directly? Unless we received appropriate value for the money spent
(and that is a separate discussion) then it was wasted and would have
been better spent by the taxpayers themselves.

I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

If you assume that spending billions of dollars privately would not
have generated similar secondary benefits (note the word similar not
the same meaning it might not have gone into miniaturization or
computerization but might have resulted in other similarly valuable
new fields), then you have a valid point. Spending all of that money
on education or on advanced medical reasearch or on ocean research
during the 60's and 70's might have generated even more beneficial
scientific breakthroughs and more direct sociatal benefits than
spending it all to shoot stuff up into (and out of) the air. Might not
have, too.

Dave Hall

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:15:34 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
directly?

No, I'm just saying it's not all _totally_ wasted money.

BillyBob wrote:

"charlie b" wrote in message
...

LRod wrote:

SNIP

As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.


AH yes - then we can be like Japan where the guy on the street does not have
guns but the gangsters do . . .

SNIP

Its not much different in the UK either, the russian mafia have been and
at the moment its the turn of yet another former eastern bloc lot to run
the brothels/drug trade etc etc, killing the previous lot along the way
if they have to.....

BillyBob wrote:
I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
sure -


Crap like that ****es me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
stop green women!

If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

BillyBob wrote:

I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
sure -



Crap like that ****es me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
stop green women!

If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.

Back in the 80's when a gulf air jet was "lost" over the desert I spent
several weeks at heathrow searching cabin crew and the bags for that
airline, one captain was so up for it he insisted on strip searches for
all the crew, including himself!
The females were searched by female security, but inductive metal
checked by me (after dressing again), we never quite had a handle on
what to do if we got a positive detection, secreted grenades or small
handguns in body cavities were not unknown even then....

In article , "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors.

Or war heros with the Medal of Honor.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/news/arc...0100_foss.html

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

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

BillyBob wrote:


"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at
airports is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our
government!

Well, considering that any moron can figure out several ways to smuggle
weapons as or more effective than those used to implement the 9/11 attack
through airport security, yes, it's pretty much wasted if the intent is to
deter Al Qaeda or their equivalents.

SNIP

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:09 -0400, the inscrutable "J. Clarke"
spake:

BillyBob wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations...

SNIP
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at
airports is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our
government!

Well, considering that any moron can figure out several ways to smuggle
weapons as or more effective than those used to implement the 9/11 attack
through airport security, yes, it's pretty much wasted if the intent is to
deter Al Qaeda or their equivalents.

Yeah, I walked on board with a 9' hardened weapon sticking out of my
shirt pocket. That freshly sharpened pencil had passed by the keen
eyes of a TSA inspector just minutes before.

What really ****es me off about the whole thing is that the terrorists
now know that there are many more possible ways to get caught if they
even THOUGHT of trying another passenger airline hijacking. Everybody
EXCEPT the US gov't knows that they won't try another one again for a
long, long time. Everything that has been done has been fruitless.
What a waste of taxpayer money, time, effort, and frustration.

The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design