On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 GMT, Han cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew

I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have
to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never
been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails
any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.

The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.

Hey, my opinions are mine!!

And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely
what(?) to prevent these types of incidents? Do you really feel that the
perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of a gun?
Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of thinking that does
nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to impare those who aren't your
typical, or even your remotely typical culprit.

--

-Mike-

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10
other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?

...snip If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip
by,
wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too?

Not if you wish to survive the situation.

If your first
inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun
in the first place?

Deeply flawed premise... Pulling out one's weapon is the second thing to do.
Ducking behind cover is first. If possible, running a VERY short distance
to cover is a good way to get to that cover. Running far is a good way to
get shot in the back by a bad guy or a cop.

Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're
prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're
prepared to take different steps.

Poppycock.
Prepared or not, if you are not armed, your choices are more limited. Duck,
hide, evade, and sneak are the ONLY options left. For people who are not
young, agile, or otherwise similar to soldier material, running to evade is
not a viable option.
Whether armed or not, the first defense is to avoid places where psychos and
junkies frequently go hunting victims.
When that does not work, the armed individual (defender) must use guile,
skill, calm judgment, and great care to survive. The initial aggressor (bad
guy) has most of the advantages.

A situation of that kind went the right way one night in Alabama a few years
ago. An armed older ("senior") fellow and his family were at a restaurant
eating. Bad guys entered and held the patrons at gunpoint to rob them.
Hoping to not increase the danger to his family, the armed older fellow was
going to go peacefully along with being robbed. Then the bad guys began
herding people into the freezer room of the restaurant. Knowing that other
recent robberies had occurred where the victims were murdered in the freezer
rooms in restaurants, the armed older ("senior") fellow drew his weapon and
shot the robbers, killing 2 of them. A couple of "good guy" people were
wounded (bullets can pass completely through bad guys and hit other people),
but no "good guys" died. The dead and wounded bad guys were later
identified as the murderers in the previous restaurant robbery/killings. A
horible nightmare was minimized by a peace loving, armed man.
It happens all the time in situations where no shots have to be fired, but
those seldom get reported.

Bless that armed older fellow who had his gun on him and used it.
Desperation, guts, a gun, and no place to "run and hide"... in Life and
Death situations, the real world is infinitely variable, but seldom like
abstract mental constructs (dreams based on limited or erroneous
information), TV, or movies.

Axel

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
[snipped to amplify my incessant desire to throw my hands up in the
air and screaming: DOESN'T ANYBODY THINK ANYMORE???"
Really ****ing hard to believe ... I should have just gone to Canada in
1967.

Most went back home when amnesty was announced.
In the meantime, I would have fed and clothed you and given you a warm
place to sleep.
Just long enough until you had an opportunity to sort out what was
troubling you.
There *IS* a difference between a coward and a conscientious
objector.
.
.
.
I will never understand what that difference is.
A coward won't. A CO won't but goes anyway. During WWII a CO corpsman
won the Medal of Honor for his actions but would not even take basic
rifle training in boot camp.
Many supposed CO's from Vietnam were cowards though. They didn't want to
go period.

Mike Marlow wrote in
:

And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do precisely
what(?) to prevent these types of incidents?

Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has
guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and those
that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer guns to
commit crimes with.

Do you really feel that
the perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession of
a gun?

No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see
above.

Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of
thinking that does nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to
impare those who aren't your typical, or even your remotely typical
culprit.

Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.

Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years back.
Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the fare
for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their illegal
weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed by the
police. Either as a result, or because of changing demographics or
because of other reasons, the crime rate went down. I happen to believe
that nabbing bad guys had something to do with it. So good laws and good
law enforcement will help. It's not the whole thing, of course. And
laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.

I'll crawl back into my hole now ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote in
:

And those restrictions (not arguing their merit), would do
precisely
what(?) to prevent these types of incidents?

Well, where do the guns to commit crimes come from? If everyone has
guns, then it is easy to steal some. If not everyone has guns, and
those that do lock them up well, then (maybe) there will be fewer
guns to commit crimes with.

Lock it up as well as you want to, if someone wants it they will steal
it. Pass a chain through a window, run it around the gun safe, hook
it to the trailer hitch on your truck, drive away, and the safe comes
right out, through the wall. Toss it in your truck and drive off and
open it at your leisure.

Then there are the firearms that disappear from police evidence
lockups.

Then there are the ones that come in with the drugs.

Do you really feel that
the perpetrators of this type of crime worry about legal posession
of
a gun?

No I don't think the bad guys worry about legal possession, but see
above.

What of it? Iraq was a police state before the US invaded, and yet it
seems, despite Saddam's best efforts before the US arrived and the US
military occupation's best efforts since, that any Iraqi who wants a
gun (or bomb or RPG or just about any other kind of weapon) has one.

Sorry Han, but this is more of the same reactive sort of
thinking that does nothing to benefit a matter, but does a lot to
impare those who aren't your typical, or even your remotely typical
culprit.

Sorry, I can't quite follow what you're trying to say.

Let me just paraphrase what's happened in NYC a numbver of years
back.
Police were told to get after farejumpers (people who didn't pay the
fare for the subway, mainly). This way a lot of people left their
illegal weapons at home, after they or their friends had them nabbed
by the police. Either as a result, or because of changing
demographics or because of other reasons, the crime rate went down.
I happen to believe that nabbing bad guys had something to do with
it. So good laws and good law enforcement will help. It's not the
whole thing, of course. And laws like the voting/literacy laws were
not good laws.

Nabbing bad guys is fine. But I don't see what it has to do with
guns.

I'll crawl back into my hole now ...

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

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out
of
the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
citizen.

Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather
impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.

Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies who
have to clean up the mess after a shooting.

And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type
pieces.

Lew

Stuart wrote:

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of
the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest
citizen.

Quite so. The UK has really strict gun laws but it make not one iota of
difference to the criminal fraternity.


... and from what I have read, you are really at the mercy of the thugs.
Honest citizens cannot be armed and cannot even defend themselves without
being prosecuted, while the thugs don't get very heavy sentences.

A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew


Read up on it at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5989270.story

We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

"Upscale" wrote:

What I'd like to see is a significant portion of a mob arrested and hit with
really severe fines or imprisonment appropriate to the crime and then have
their pictures and names plastered in the local newspaper. Not five or six
arrests like usually happens, but 100-200 arrests, enough to make people
think twice about using mob mentality to steal or destroy.

The problem is that the people at the front that could see things are likely being pushed
by the rear columns that do not know what is going on.

Wes

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out
of
the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the
honest
citizen.

Don't even try to regulate the sale of any type of firearms, rather
impose a $10.00/cartridge tax at the point of sale.

And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
firearms that they have never shot?

Utilize the proceeds to cover the cost of law enforcement agencies
who
have to clean up the mess after a shooting.

And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you
believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?

And yes, still have my dad's model 12 and a few other long gun type
pieces.

Which presumably you've never shot if you don't have any problem with
a box of shells costing 250 bucks.

By the way, how much tax would you charge on a can of powder or a box
of primers? And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
weights?

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

jo4hn wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of
downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew


Read up on it at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5989270.story

We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

What, military occupation and the declaration of martial law?

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

"Han" wrote in message

And
laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.

I sometimes wonder when I see the likes of our Congress.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
firearms that they have never shot?

I guess you assume they will never be shot.

As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your definition
of "benefits".

A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.

And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do you
believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?

I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.

And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
weights?

Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but
impossible.

The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat
ballast was a total PITA.

Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.

Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.

Lew

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:I0iYk.7171$as4.4091
@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:


"Han" wrote in message

And
laws like the voting/literacy laws were not good laws.

I sometimes wonder when I see the likes of our Congress.

Agreed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

jo4hn wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew


Read up on it at

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5989270.story

Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended
to make it sound like a movie scene.

No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.

Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that
more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:

"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"

"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."

" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming
her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "


Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing
their Hollywood script.




We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew

Read up on it at

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5989270.story

Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended
to make it sound like a movie scene.

No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.

Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that
more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:

"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"

"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."

" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming
her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "


Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing
their Hollywood script.



We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly
lost your soul somewhere.
j4

jo4hn wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered
a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown
L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew

Read up on it at


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5989270.story

Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized?
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this
intended to make it sound like a movie scene.

No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.

Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact
that
more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:

"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"

"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."

" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming
angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted,
slamming her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "


Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the
reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy
writing their Hollywood script.



We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand.

Ya know, I didn't miss that. I get that, nowhere in my commentary above
did I minimize that. I took exception to the sensationalism, not the
incident.


Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly
lost your soul somewhere.

Oh, BS. The actual facts should have been enough. Two idiots chasing
each other through a crowded store shooting at each other is a terrible
thing. I get that. What I don't get is why the LAT spent most of the
writeup with superfluous tripe like, " Most shoppers headed to the Toys R
Us in Palm Desert on Friday morning clutching their "door buster" ads and
their shopping lists. At least two men walked into the busy store armed
with their guns." instead of providing some detail on who those two men
were. Were they gang-bangers? Did they have prior arrests? Were they
just peaceful law-abiding citizens for whom something just snapped? Why
were the two couples feuding? Again, was there a gang connection, or was
it just neighbors who had a running dispute? You know, those would have
been kind of pertinent facts. Please don't try the excuse that it's only
been a little while and the facts aren't available yet. It took less time
for the media to have the complete life history of Joe the Plumber.


I've lost my soul? BS -- it's papers and reporters like the LAT that have
lost theirs.


j4

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Found this one tonight.

Lew
................................................. .......
From: "jo4hn"
Subject: OT Humor: Monday's smut
Date: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:56 PM

Ole and Sven, were holidaying on the beach in Australia while on
vacation, and Sven couldn't seem to make it with any of the girls. So
he asked the local lifeguard for some advice.

"Mate, it's obvious," says the lifeguard, "you're wearing them old
baggy
Minnesota style swimming trunks that make ya look like an old geezer.

They're years outta style. Your best bet is to grab yourself a pair
of
Speedos - about two sizes too small - and drop a fist-sized potato
down
inside 'em. I'm tellin' ya man...you'll have all the babes ya want!"

The following day, Sven hits the beach with his spanking new tight
Speedos, and his fist-sized potato . Everybody on the beach was
disgusted as he walked by, covering their faces, turning away,
laughing,
looking sick!

So Ole went back to the lifeguard again and asked him, "Vat's wrong
now?" Sven still isn't picking up babes.

"JAHEESUS!" said the lifeguard, "Mate. The potato goes in front!"


:-)

"jo4hn" wrote in message

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and
you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly lost
your soul somewhere.
j4

I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each other and
hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they did, but they did
not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any. Perhaps they spent
hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim. Maybe they should get the
Darwin Sharpshooters Award.

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out. Let's
get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And society benefits in what way from people going around carrying
firearms that they have never shot?

I guess you assume they will never be shot.

So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at 10
bucks a shot?

As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your
definition
of "benefits".

A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.

Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few less
innocent people being shot"?

And how much do you think those "proceeds" would be and what
percentage of the efforts of typical law enforcement agencies do
you
believe to be devoted to "cleaning up the mess after a shooting"?

I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.

So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe
that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?

And would you regulate the possession of discarded wheel
weights?

Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but
impossible.

Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?

The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat
ballast was a total PITA.

Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel behind
the tire store.

Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.

Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.

Uh huh.


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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And if
it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the
US ones?

Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the
statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is
going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of
crimes done by the press.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
been a little while and the facts aren't available yet. It took less time
for the media to have the complete life history of Joe the Plumber.

It might make a decent human interest story to find out in a year or so what
has happened to Joe and see how it correlates to his situation during the
election.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

"JAHEESUS!" said the lifeguard, "Mate. The potato goes in front!"

Now, *that one* made me laugh. Here it is almost 3:30 am and the neighbours
must be wondering what all the laughing was about.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"jo4hn" wrote in message

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to
understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store
and you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have
truly lost your soul somewhere.
j4

I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each
other and hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they
did, but they did not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any.
Perhaps they spent hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim.
Maybe they should get the Darwin Sharpshooters Award.

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out.
Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want to
know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"jo4hn" wrote in message

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two
people
killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you
to understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded
store and you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup.
You
have truly lost your soul somewhere.
j4

I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each
other and hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they
did, but they did not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit
any.
Perhaps they spent hours at a shooting range and learned how to
aim.
Maybe they should get the Darwin Sharpshooters Award.

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
out.
Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
to
know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.

If they're using typical handguns it's a pretty safe place to
stand--duck down behind the guy and he makes a good shield.

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

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Found this one tonight.

Lew
.................................................. ......
Whoa there, hoss. Them's my people yer talkin' about. Gotta find some
more smut.
spasm,
jo4hn

"Han" wrote in message

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out.
Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want to
know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone standing
behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so I'm not jumping
to conclusions.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else was
hurt by flying bullets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"jo4hn" wrote:

Whoa there, hoss. Them's my people yer talkin' about. Gotta find
some more smut.
spasm,
jo4hn

You were doing the talking, I'm just the messengerG.

BTW, since "they" are your people, are you still up to speed with your
ration of "Hanna & Ole" jokes?

Lew

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the
shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else was
hurt by flying bullets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know it was
pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you know there was
flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be shooter No 1 waited
until there was no one else in range. We don't know that and yet you say it
was pure luck. I don't believe it.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one
out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want
to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of
the shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so
I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else
was hurt by flying bullets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know it
was pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you know
there was flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be shooter
No 1 waited until there was no one else in range. We don't know that
and yet you say it was pure luck. I don't believe it.

There were 2 shooters who shot each other dead. That's really the only
relevant facts that I know. (Yes, they were provoked by their wives, or
whatever the relationships were). In such a case I think it is indeed
pure luck that eithere only 2 shots were fired, or all the other shots (I
don't know the number fired) went either totally in the object of each
shooter or completely wide of anyone.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote:


So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at
10
bucks a shot?

Not relevant.

Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few
less
innocent people being shot"?

It might.

So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe
that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?

Read and try to understand what was written.


Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?

They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.

Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel
behind
the tire store.

These days it is a hazmat operation.


Lew

Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other
one
out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on
facts.

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd
want to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind
one of the shooters.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone
standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios
so
I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one
else
was hurt by flying bullets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know
it was pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you
know there was flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be
shooter No 1 waited until there was no one else in range. We don't
know that and yet you say it was pure luck. I don't believe it.

There were 2 shooters who shot each other dead. That's really the
only relevant facts that I know. (Yes, they were provoked by their
wives, or whatever the relationships were). In such a case I think
it is indeed pure luck that eithere only 2 shots were fired, or all
the other shots (I don't know the number fired) went either totally
in the object of each shooter or completely wide of anyone.

If there's "pure luck" it might be that the luck was that both
shooters had been practicing regularly so that they hit what they were
aiming at.

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

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at
10
bucks a shot?

Not relevant.

It is to the question of whether they have shot the gun they are
carrying. You asked me why they would not have shot it and I gave a
reason.

Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few
less
innocent people being shot"?

It might.

By what mechanism? "It might" is not or should not be sufficient
justification for legislation.

So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you
believe
that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?

Read and try to understand what was written.

You're the one who said that it was better than the _nothing_ that we
have now.

Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?

They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.

Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of brand
new wheel weights?

Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel
behind
the tire store.

These days it is a hazmat operation.

In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
store in the US.



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

"J. Clarke" wrote:

By what mechanism?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be
reduced since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost
of a usable weapon.

Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used
wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of
brand
new wheel weights?

The market all ready pretty much takes care of itself.

Cost of new product negates any cost advantage of trying to reclaim
them for another purpose.

In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire
store in the US.

Totally unnecessary.

The industry has been advised of the hazmat procedures.

Don't know of many companies that are willing to expose themselves to
hazmat problems for a nominal sum of money.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
"J. Clarke" wrote:

By what mechanism?

Simple.

As you increase the cost of an activity, you reduce the number of
participants.

At a minimun, the number of "Saturday night specials" sold will be reduced
since the cost of ammo for it would more than double the cost of a usable
weapon.

Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

todd

Upscale wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown
that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and
less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And
if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to
the US ones?


Several cites:
The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the source,
you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181 Key summary:
"Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared
to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent,
murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11
percent. "

Effect of gun laws in England and the idea that people should not protect
themselves or others, they should rely upon society to protect them:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html




Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the
statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is
going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of
crimes done by the press.

2006 piece citing some Canadian information
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html


Those were few that were found in a few minutes of looking


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"todd" wrote in message
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference between
the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the fact that
they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because something *is*
enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean that what was
important then is necessarily important now. During the past 300 years,
population and society have changed significantly.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up?
And
if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate
to
the US ones?

The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the
source,
you can peruse the FBI report yourself.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4181

I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole
purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased
national statistics?

2006 piece citing some Canadian information
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html

Same comment as above. The personal view of a single individual who has set
up a website for blogging his opinion.

Sorry Mark, the above sources only make one question it further. I'll have a
look around for some statistics that project a more unbiased and widely
studied point of view.

Upscale wrote:


"todd" wrote in message
Any other of the amendments to the Constitution that you'd like to
eliminate
by back door processes? Maybe let the press have their printing presses
but
tax ink at $1,000,000 / gal? Or maybe a $1,000 tax at the door of your
church to get in.

I think most would agree that there's a significant moral difference
between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech, despite the
fact that they're both enshrined in your constitution. And just because
something *is* enshrined in your constitution, doesn't for one second mean
that what was important then is necessarily important now. During the past
300 years, population and society have changed significantly.

Human nature, however has not. The fact that there are still people out
there who would prey upon those weaker than themselves does not make the
right to self-defense any less relevant now than it was in the past.


Nor does the threat of an armed citizenry make enslavement of those
citizens any easier now than in the past. There are still those today who
would impose absolute dictatorial power over others if they were able to do
so.

You may say that you see a moral difference between the right to free
speech and the right to bear arms -- there are those who see the right to
free speech as something that is outmoded and should be subject to
strict "guidelines" that prevent giving offense to various protected
groups.

The fact is, that there are those now who say that the freedom enshrined
in the Constitution is no longer relevant and that the Constitution is an
impediment to the government exercising more control over our lives (for
our good of course -- it's always for our good). *That* is exactly why the
Constitution was established as it was -- to protect us from those who
would enslave us "for our own good". Just because the excuses given for
that desire for control may have changed, the need to prevent that type of
tyrannical behavior has not changed.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough