On 4/17/2013 1:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:52:01 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Case in point, I believe that guns are not allowed in the UK. How many
bombings have been used by the IRA in the past 40 years?

Nevertheless, there's still a different mind set between the bomber
and the person walking through some area just shooting people. They're
not thinking the same and they have a different perspective on self
preservation.


Having done neither, I would not know. Perhaps you have some personal
insight on that. :~)

I think that all we are saying is that those that want to do harm are
going to do it regardless if there are guns available or not. And then
add the fact that if guns are outlawed then only the criminals will have
guns.

On 4/17/2013 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:56:53 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
It is happening that way but it is not as popular. Take away the guns
and it will become popular.

No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as
someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the
people around him, not until the authorities arrive.

And that is because of gun laws that restrict every one from carrying a
gun. If every one that wanted to carry guns, did, the shooter would be
in immediate danger before the police arrived.

On 04/16/2013 11:24 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people

That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
goes off.

The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.

I don't think the many suicide bombers are too concerned with self
protection/preservation!


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 4/16/2013 11:24 PM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
acts with guns, but taking and keeping guns out of the hands of everyone
isn't the solution to the problem. Unstable people are the problem. My
guess is that we'll see bombs grow in interest in that community of people

That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely
different mind set between someone going around and shooting people
and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it
goes off.

The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber
still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.


suicide bombers don't have much of a sense of self protection.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the
bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different
agenda.

I'm not so sure of that Dave.

I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?

BTW - I was not disagreeing with the context of your suggestion, just not
sure about it. I'm sure there are people somewhere who have, or are
studying this very kind of thing.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote:
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties
and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the
bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different
agenda.

I'm not so sure of that Dave.

I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?

BTW - I was not disagreeing with the context of your suggestion, just not
sure about it. I'm sure there are people somewhere who have, or are
studying this very kind of thing.


Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.

I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.

There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.

I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.

On 4/18/2013 11:13 AM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.

I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.

door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a
class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry
duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.

There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.

I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:47:53 -0700, chaniarts
door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a
class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry
duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.

Of course there's an exception to everything, but it's certainly not
the status quo.

On 4/18/2013 1:13 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be
saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just
that regardless if guns are readily available or not.

I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make.
For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there
doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.

IMHO that would all depend on the expense and or ease of acquisition.

You have to believe that those seeking Allah are not thinking straight
or have so much hate/loss of need to exist and that have explosives
strapped their bodies are of a similar mind set as those spraying bullets.



There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And,
that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.

Their mind set is not strictly to kill numbers of people only if they
can do it with a hand gun, the gun is simply the most readily available
weapon. A bomb would require a few hours of preparation to do the same
act and seldom do these people just snap, most all have planned the
event in great detail.

I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably
will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.

Different until one weapon of choice is unavailable and then like in the
middle east less expensive and just as deadly weapons are used.


Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked.
There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40
years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better. So
trying to fix what is not broken is not going to solve the problem of
people not being held accountable for their actions or for how they have
let their children be raised.

"-MIKE-" wrote:

Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
the
left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bull****.

I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
be
a little bit ironic.

According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
firearms
in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
watching TV.

The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
that
evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.

It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
deputy
had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.

Kind of ironic.

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
lost his
right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
and
both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks;
however,
the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
them.

Lew

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.

Your country specific taunts are beneath you.

Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
possible.

It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.

On 4/18/13 10:02 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:

Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
the
left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bull****.

I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
be
a little bit ironic.

According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
firearms
in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
watching TV.

The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
that
evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.

It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
deputy
had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.

Kind of ironic.

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
lost his
right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
and
both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks;
however,
the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
them.

Lew


Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE-
The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
fairy-tails of the Left.

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.

Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
training in the face of presumed REAL danger.

How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.

On 4/18/13 10:05 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.

Your country specific taunts are beneath you.

Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
possible.

It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings.

Where and how had this been proven?


You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.


Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms. I know of
teenagers who have better aim and gun control than most cops. The vast
majority cops only discharge their firearms at the shooting range. Most
private gun owners shoot their weapons much more frequently than cops.
They used to teach firearms procedure and shooting in high schools.
People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
were and trained their children to use and respect them.

Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
intruders with their personal firearms.

Why is it that the cities with the strictest guns control laws and bans
on hand guns still have the highest (by leaps and bounds) rates for
murder by guns?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 04/18/2013 08:14 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE-
The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
fairy-tails of the Left.

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.

Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
training in the face of presumed REAL danger.

How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.


Bawn Jure.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 4/18/13 10:14 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE-
The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
fairy-tails of the Left.

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.

Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
training in the face of presumed REAL danger.

How do you explain that? Even for law enforcement professionals,
CONSTANT training and readiness preparation is essential to handle
these sudden situations that you want everybody to be armed for.


I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 04/18/2013 08:05 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:21:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is
that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.

Your country specific taunts are beneath you.

Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society
these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as
possible.

It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and
preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react
properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday
citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be
ridiculous.


Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so. Only recently have we
given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
and therein lies the problem.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:45 -0500, -MIKE-
Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.

Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there
are around, the less there are for someone to steal.

The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are
so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them.
So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US.
Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as
a whole.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE-
Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms.

Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training
that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do
in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law
enforcement in the US.

People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
were and trained their children to use and respect them.

It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the
proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation
that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes
repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.

Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
intruders with their personal firearms.

And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been
where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then,
you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their
home burglarize and had their guns stolen?

However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns,
there are many more where the opposite has happened.

On 4/18/13 10:23 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:45 -0500, -MIKE-
Yeah, because a bad guy never stole a gun to murder anyone.

Which is the point I've repeated tried to make. The less guns there
are around, the less there are for someone to steal.

The only response that seems to be made these days is that there are
so many guns around that it's a waste of time trying to limit them.
So, why try? That seems to be the attitude of many people in the US.
Giving up is not an attitude that I'd generally attribute to the US as
a whole.


There is no reason to limit guns.
It is also unconstitutional to do so in the US.
If we were to ban guns like they do in Chicago, the bad guys can still
get them illegally. Chicago has the highest gun murder rate in the
country and has the strictest gun control laws. All banning guns does is
stop the law abiding citizens from being able
to defend themselves.

In areas where more homes and citizens have more guns, there is less
crime. There is a simple explanation for that. The bad guys know if they
try to rob someone in these areas, there's a good chance they will get
their ass shot attempting it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE-
I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?

Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
let you know if I find it.

The main point of the show was that people react differently under
stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.

On 4/18/2013 10:21 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:





Only recently have we
given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
and therein lies the problem.

Exactly!

On 4/18/2013 10:14 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:23:48 -0500, -MIKE-
The only people terrified of gun are those who have never been trained
to use them or those who have been brainwashed with the scare tactic
fairy-tails of the Left.

And you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I watched a
television show recently where people were shown how to handle and
discharge a firearm. They then were sent out carrying the hand gun
thinking it was loaded with real ammunition.

Then when in a classroom setting, someone burst into the room and
started shooting people. Every damned one of them forgot their
training in the face of presumed REAL danger.

How do you explain that?


They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
are not going to poop when we see a gun.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:21:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn
Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.

I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And considering
the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous thing
to have around.

given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
and therein lies the problem.

From some of the easy convictions handed down these days, I'd tend to
agree with you.

On 4/18/13 10:38 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:16:23 -0500, -MIKE-
Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt
makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms.

Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training
that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do
in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law
enforcement in the US.

People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they
were and trained their children to use and respect them.

It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the
proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation
that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes
repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.


Yet the bad guys seem to get enough training. In every city in America
and most rural areas there are firearms training courses, which include
tactical weapons training. it's a matter of priority. If you have a
table saw, you seek training to know how to use it. Same with guns.


Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many
stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from
intruders with their personal firearms.

And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been
where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then,
you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their
home burglarize and had their guns stolen?

However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns,
there are many more where the opposite has happened.


I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

In Israel, every child has to go through military training and service
that includes tactical gun use. Switzerland requires every male adult to
own firearms and go through extensive training. Both countries have
extremely low gun homicide rates.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:47:12 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
are not going to poop when we see a gun.

Yeah, ok, that's funny. A polar bear or moose, we Canadians are
prepared to wrestle them to the ground, but we when we come up against
other people with guns, we run and hide in our igloos.

You better hope that when I find the information on this show, that it
wasn't a US made show.

On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE-
I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?

Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
let you know if I find it.

The main point of the show was that people react differently under
stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.


The point is the show is bull****.
You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police
officers.
And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE-
I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?

Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
let you know if I find it.

The main point of the show was that people react differently under
stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.


The point is the show is bull****.
You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police officers.
And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.


Better yet, require training and license parents ...

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 04/18/2013 08:50 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:21:38 -0700, Doug Winterburn
Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.

I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And considering
the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous thing
to have around.

Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and millions
of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the need for self
defense - no matter what our current homeland security head says about
border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border, and I see signs 3
miles from my house warning me not to venture into the desert because of
human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to be public land! We have
had running gun battles between coyotes vying for each others smuggled
illegals kill innocent travelers on Interstate 10. We have had ranchers
killed on their own property by drug smugglers. I'd be negligent
without a personal firearm to protect my family and myself!

And to add to that, my sister (now deceased) lived in Custer, WA. She
was a horse person and enjoyed riding near her home close to the
Canadian border. She gave it up as she had too may close calls with
drug smugglers bringing that crap from Canada into the US.


given up the remedy for misuse of firearms of hanging the perpetrators,
and therein lies the problem.

From some of the easy convictions handed down these days, I'd tend to
agree with you.




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:54:38 -0500, -MIKE-
I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by
automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more
deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.

And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers,
whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other
uses and originated with a different purpose.

Perhaps you should read this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun
didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target
shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or
go kill someone in a fight".

In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall
back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago.
Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second
amendment is out of date in today's society.

But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else.
Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to
take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other
method to handle your gun crimes.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:05:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn
Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and millions
of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the need for self
defense - no matter what our current homeland security head says about
border security.

Well, you maybe right. I don't experience that kind of stress where I
live. I do live in a crowded city in an apartment building that has
its own level of stress or possible danger if you prefer.

And, I will admit one other thing. If guns were legal and easily
obtained I'd own one now. A little over thirty years ago, I used to do
quite a bit of target shooting and owned a half dozen rifles and hand
guns. But, those day are long gone and unlikely to return.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"-MIKE-" wrote:

Interesting you bring up Sandy Hook. It's been the trumpet call of
the
left as the catalyst for the entire current gun control legislation.
Without Sandy Hook, there would be no current debate. Without Sandy
Hook, there would be no push by the Dems to ban "assault style"
weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bull****.

I find the recent murder of the Dallas DA, his wife and a deputy DA to
be
a little bit ironic.

According to the DA's son he kept more than a dozen fully loaded
firearms
in his home including one on each side and one behind a chair used for
watching TV.

The DA had gathered up these firearms and placed them out of sight
that
evening since they were going to entertain guests that night.

It is coming out that a Justice of the Piece, who the DA and his
deputy
had convicted the JP of theft of gov't property.

Kind of ironic.

If universal background check had been in place, the JP would have
lost his
right to possess firearms as a result of becoming a convicted felon,
and
both these senseless murders would have been avoided.

Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
capable of murder is going to give up his guns? Think Iraq and weapons of
mass destruction. When there is a will to hide and kill there will always
be a way.


Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these paranoid gun toting folks.

I really don't think they are looking for sympathy, it is their right to do
so should they choose to do so.


however,
the firearms and ammunition manufacturers could not survive without
them.

Actually many gun manufacturers build many other things besides guns.



Lew

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:47:12 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
They were Canadian! ;~) Canadians are used to living with out guns and
I feel that is OK if that is what you want. But our constitutions gives
us the right to have fire arms and that is a very old tradition so we
are not going to poop when we see a gun.

Yeah, ok, that's funny. A polar bear or moose, we Canadians are
prepared to wrestle them to the ground, but we when we come up against
other people with guns, we run and hide in our igloos.

You better hope that when I find the information on this show, that it
wasn't a US made show.



Regardless of how this discussion ends up lets not be mad at one another.
And my mentioning your gun laws and Canadians still being killed by guns
was absolutely not intended to be below the belt. I continue to maintain
that regardless of how strict gun laws are the innocent law biding people
are the most likely to be killed by a gun. It would be like trying to out
law bad weather.

Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:37:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)

Yes, but if the show was made in California you'd more likely die of
stress related cancer from the lead in the hand gun bullets.

Swingman wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 4/18/13 10:42 PM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0500, -MIKE-
I'd a link for this show. How long was the training? A weekend?

Probably not much more. I'm searching for a link to this show. I'll
let you know if I find it.

The main point of the show was that people react differently under
stress. And apparently, to properly handle yourself under those
situations, you have to constantly train for and be prepared for them.


The point is the show is bull****.
You need trained to use tools and weapons, period.
Private firearms owners routinely practice and train more than police officers.
And what would be the big deal of requiring training? Instead of passing
laws to ban weapons, pass laws to insure people who are exercising their
2nd Amendment rights get proper training. I'm all for that.


Better yet, require training and license parents ...


Yeah! I have been reluctant to say it but I firmly believe that the
biggest problem with our society in the U.S. is that in most cases both
parents work and are not available for their kids. Too busy trying to
stay up with the Jones and not paying enough to what really matters, our
children.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.

--------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And
considering
the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous
thing
to have around.
------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and
millions of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the
need for self defense - no matter what our current homeland security
head says about border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border,
and I see signs 3 miles from my house warning me not to venture into
the desert because of human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to
be public land! We have had running gun battles between coyotes
vying for each others smuggled illegals kill innocent travelers on
Interstate 10. We have had ranchers killed on their own property by
drug smugglers. I'd be negligent without a personal firearm to
protect my family and myself!
----------------------------------------------------
Some things are abundantly obvious.

The war on drugs has been an expensive and total failure.

If you want to take over the USA, having an armed citizenry is not
much
of a deterrent.

You don't need firearms to conduct cyber war, hell, you don't even
have
to be in the USA.

You don't need firearms to contaminate the nation's water supply.

You don't need firearms to totally disrupt the transportation systems.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

The days of the Lone Ranger are history.

I don't have a good idea to completely solve the "drug problem";
however, taking the profit out of the "drug problem", is a good
starting point.

It is abundantly clear that the firearms and ammunition
manufacturers are playing the public like a fiddle.

Time to wake up.

Off the box.

Lew

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:37:25 -0500, Leon wrote:
Now concerning your show, I would not be at all surprised if it was filmed
in California but NOT IN TEXAS! :-)

Yes, but if the show was made in California you'd more likely die of
stress related cancer from the lead in the hand gun bullets.

Now you are talking! LOL

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Well, to be country specific, the U.S. has a little thing in our
Constitution called the Second Amendment. Our citizenry has been
(mostly) armed for the last 300 years or so.

--------------------------------------------------
Dave wrote:

I'd suggest that your point was valid those 300 years or so ago.
Society has change quite a bit on 300 years. The firearm is not
necessary for survival, at least not in a food sense. And
considering
the close confines of people in cities, a gun can be a dangerous
thing
to have around.
------------------------------------------------------
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Perhaps if you lived as close to the Mexican border as I (and
millions of other legal US citizens) do, you might re-assess the
need for self defense - no matter what our current homeland security
head says about border security. I'm 90 miles north of the border,
and I see signs 3 miles from my house warning me not to venture into
the desert because of human and drug smuggling. This is supposed to
be public land! We have had running gun battles between coyotes
vying for each others smuggled illegals kill innocent travelers on
Interstate 10. We have had ranchers killed on their own property by
drug smugglers. I'd be negligent without a personal firearm to
protect my family and myself!
----------------------------------------------------
Some things are abundantly obvious.

The war on drugs has been an expensive and total failure.

If you want to take over the USA, having an armed citizenry is not
much
of a deterrent.

You don't need firearms to conduct cyber war, hell, you don't even
have
to be in the USA.

You don't need firearms to contaminate the nation's water supply.

You don't need firearms to totally disrupt the transportation systems.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

The days of the Lone Ranger are history.

I don't have a good idea to completely solve the "drug problem";
however, taking the profit out of the "drug problem", is a good
starting point.

It is abundantly clear that the firearms and ammunition
manufacturers are playing the public like a fiddle.

Time to wake up.

Off the box.

Lew

All these problems have popped up and especially in California because your
local government knows what is best for you and has you believe it..

"Leon" wrote:

Oh good golly Lew. Do you really thing that an ex law person that is
capable of murder is going to give up his guns?
---------------------------------------------
It's either surrender your guns or spend some time in one of your
Texas "Graybar Hotels".

Lew