Re: Time to get tougher
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4f68060-9302-4311...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> Too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people.
>
> Time to get tougher.
>
> Time for psych testing for gun purchases and gun ownership.
>
> It could be paid for by a tax on gun owned and purchases of guns and
> ammo.
>
> If you have money to buy a gun, you have the money to pay for the
> testing.
>
> TMT
Nitwit. You should have psych testing before being allowed to post here.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/12/states-ease-restrictions-gun-laws/
Updated December 12, 2009
Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Laws
AP
In many states across the United States, it's getting easier to carry a
gun -- and many say it's the result of a campaign by the National Rifle
Association.
In many states across the United States, it's getting easier to carry a
gun -- and many say it's the result of a campaign by the National Rifle
Association.
A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two
years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws
loosening gun restrictions.
Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in
cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and
expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid
in another.
The trend is attributed in large part to a push by the NRA. The NRA, the
leading gun-owners lobby in the U.S. which for years has blocked attempts in
Washington to tighten firearms laws, has ramped up its efforts at the state
level to chip away at gun restrictions.
"This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right
of self defense by law-abiding Americans," says Chris W. Cox, the NRA's
chief lobbyist. "We'll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right
of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack."
Tennessee and Montana, for example, have passed laws that exempt weapons
made and owned in-state from federal restrictions.
Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a
.50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up
to 5 miles (8 kilometers). The rifle is banned in California.
There have been gun-friendly law changes in other states. Arizona, Florida,
Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their
employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots. Some states have
made handgun permit information confidential and others have allowed handgun
permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions
expunged or their full civil rights restored.
The AP compiled the data on new laws from groups ranging from the Legal
Community Against Violence, which advocates gun control, to the NRA.
Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50
years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said
they favored a ban on handguns except for "police and other authorized
persons." Gallup's most recent annual crime survey in October found 71
percent opposed such a ban.
The NRA boasts that almost all states grant handgun permits to people with
clean criminal and psychological records. In 1987, only 10 states did. Only
Wisconsin, Illinois and Washington, D.C., now prohibit carrying concealed
handguns entirely.
"The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures," said Kristin
Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control
group in Washington. "They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost
them their seats, even though there's no real evidence to back that up."
Tennessee's new laws came after the Republican takeover of the General
Assembly this year, but most other states that loosened restrictions didn't
experience major partisan shifts.
Most of the states where the new laws were enacted have large rural
populations, where support for gun rights tends to cross party lines.
While some states have tightened gun laws during the same period, the list
of new restrictive laws is much shorter. In 2009 alone, more than three
times as many laws were passed to make it easier on gun owners.
New Jersey's 2009 law limiting people to one handgun purchase per month is
the most notable of the more-restrictive laws. Other examples this year
include Maryland's ban on concealed weapons on public transit and Maine's
vote to give public universities and colleges the power to regulate firearms
on campus.
The most contentious of Tennessee's new gun laws was one allowing handguns
in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. It took effect in July after
lawmakers overrode a veto by the governor. Last month, a Nashville judge
struck down the law as unconstitutionally vague, but supporters have vowed
to pass it again.
A similar Arizona law that took effect in September allows people with
concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that
haven't posted signs banning them.
While Tennessee's law was in place, many bars chose not to let customers
bring guns in. Likewise, more than 70 communities have opted out of allowing
guns in parks.
"People go in there and start drinking and then they want to start a fight.
What are they going to do if they got a gun in their hand?" said Larry
Speck, 69, who works at an auto repair shop in Memphis. "I've got a gun
permit and I'm not carrying mine in there, even if they have a law."
Supporters of expanding handgun rights argue that people with state-issued
permits are far less likely to commit crimes, and that more lawfully armed
people cause a reduction in crime.
Opponents fear that more guns could lead to more crime.
Academics are divided on the effects of liberalized handgun laws, and
determining the impact is complicated by the move in several states to close
handgun permit records.
Lib Loo
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:bhm8i55m9i23rjgcq...@4ax.com...
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people.
>
> Anything to divert attention from the Obama failures, eh, T?
With so many failures, it has become expected and is no longer news.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bhm8i55m9i23rjgcq...@4ax.com...
>
> > Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people.
>
> > Anything to divert attention from the Obama failures, eh, T?
>
> With so many failures, it has become expected and is no longer news.
So you approve of cops being killed.
You are one sick puppy Loo.
TMT
dca...@krl.org
> So you approve of cops being killed.
>
> You are one sick puppy Loo.
>
> TMT
Please show exactly where Loo indicated he approved of cops being
killed. I think you just made up this smear.
Dan
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89407a01-90b0-4704...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
So you approve of American citizens being killed.
You are one sick puppy Too_Many_Moms.
Lib Loo
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:151863e1-0826-4edc...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Dan. This is a typical extreme left wing liberal tactic any time one
cannot argue, or loses an argument. It typical for Too_Many_Moms, don't mind
him, he's just a kid with a keyboard.
Lib Loo
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:02b7e9a9-a1b4-4640...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 9:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> > On Dec 12, 11:14 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> >>> How much further do you think taxes can be raised on the middle
>> >>> class -
>> >>> during a depression - before REVOLT begins?
>> >> What taxes have been raised "on the middle class during a depression."
>> >> _This_ depression. Be specific and detail all aspects.
>>
>> > House property taxes. State sales taxes here in North Carolina.
>> > (Proposed) Obamacare.
>> > On top of that, high inflation on nondeferrable purchase items (food,
>> > fuel, prescriptions) caused by regime just printing paper dollar like
>> > mad to fund deficit spending, wars, bailouts. That, too, is a tax.
>>
>> >http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
>>
>> If you want to see how wealthy and comfortable Socialism will make you
>> just look to Cuba's great economic opportunities.
>
> I cannot wait for Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. I want one
> of those jobs that Cubans don't want to do.
Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:24308480-60bd-46e7...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 12, 10:06 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>> How much further do you think taxes can be raised on the middle class
>> - during a depression - before REVOLT begins?
>> You don't need "psych testing" to know that letting violent felons out
>> early - as Huckabee did with that guy who killed the four cops up by
>> Seattle - is risky. (Who needed "psych testing" there? Governor
>> Huckabee - for being willing to turn that guy loose into any job
>> market where nil jobs for convicted felons to honestly earn livings
>> existed, or the felon?)
>>
>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!
>
> If you have money to buy food, you have money to pay taxes.
>
> TMT
Hungry yet?
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea2284a5-1678-461b...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 12, 11:43 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>> > Too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people.
>>
>> > Time to get tougher.
>> > ...
>>
>> It's time to get smarter first. Then you can get tough.
>>
>> If you want to curb violent crime, stiffen the penalty. Getting tough
>> on law-abiding citizens (which is who your 'get tougher' really affects)
>> serves no purpose.
>>
>> Let me ask a simple question: do you support getting tougher on violent
>> criminals?
>
> I agree...if you own a gun and it is used to kill a cop, you go to
> jail...end of story.
So what's your argument then? Are you under the illusion that cop killers
don't go to jail? Do we need to pass a law?
>
> When you buy a gun, you sign up for the responsibility to keep it
> under your control.
>
> No excuses.
>
> Excuses can't bring dead cops back.
>
> If you can't handle the responsibility, then don't own the gun.
>
> TMT
>
We need to prevent liberal straw buyers with hyphenated last names from
entering gun shops. There should be a stink-o-meter at the front door.
Too_Many_Tools
Read the article.
Loo is obviously not in favor of correcting the problem.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lying will not change the truth about you Loo.
A person who advocates cop killing and pedophily.
And Republican.
Your support is not what the Republican Party needs.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote in message
Given the evidence Dan will see through you just like everyone else
has.
Have you bought those dead cops back to life?
You know they have familes...all affected by the stupidity of those
like you.
TMT
RD (The Sandman)
news:hg1mtk$5u5$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Poll results
Should gun laws be more strict?
1990 - 78% said yes
2000 - 62% said yes
2009 - 44% said yes.
USA Today.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
dca...@krl.org
> > Please show exactly where Loo indicated he approved of cops being
> > killed. I think you just made up this smear.
>
> > Dan
>
> Read the article.
>
> Loo is obviously not in favor of correcting the problem.
>
> TMT
I did read the article. Did not see anything about cops being
killed. DId see where academics are divided on whether less
restrictions are good or not.
Dan
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f95ee78-c330-4f9b...@f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Go suck your moms' tits. All eight of them, moo!
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:deaf0f69-bf6f-495a...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 3:36 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>> Your mommies are uglier than my crazymother.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Curly
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---
>> 2012 Run, John, Run! 2012
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�---
>
> Again Curly is right.
>
> It's becoming a habit. ;<)
>
> TMT
That makes you proud?
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:84e4d335-f0b5-470b...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Tell you what...let's just keep doing what is not working and see
>where it gets us.
>
> That seems to be the Republican way.
>
> How's it working for you guys so far?
>
> TMT
Pretty good except for the screeching of the libs and their wrist flailing.
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:feb6c62e-11f1-43e4...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Sound like you need your guns taken away since your comments sound
> like those from an irresponsible owner.
>
> TMT
Why don't you try and take them instead of just talking about it?
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:02b7e9a9-a1b4-4640...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 9:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >> > On Dec 12, 11:14 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >> >>> How much further do you think taxes can be raised on the middle
> >> >>> class -
> >> >>> during a depression - before REVOLT begins?
> >> >> What taxes have been raised "on the middle class during a depression."
> >> >> _This_ depression. Be specific and detail all aspects.
>
> >> > House property taxes. State sales taxes here in North Carolina.
> >> > (Proposed) Obamacare.
> >> > On top of that, high inflation on nondeferrable purchase items (food,
> >> > fuel, prescriptions) caused by regime just printing paper dollar like
> >> > mad to fund deficit spending, wars, bailouts. That, too, is a tax.
>
>
> >> If you want to see how wealthy and comfortable Socialism will make you
> >> just look to Cuba's great economic opportunities.
>
> > I cannot wait for Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. I want one
> > of those jobs that Cubans don't want to do.
>
> Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Too_Many_Tools
Then read it again...the entire article is about cops being killed by
guns.
You sure you have the right article?
Loo loves to post garbage.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
LOL...and all that spamming that you are doing?
Worried that nobody gives a damn what you think?
You would be right. ;<)
So it looks like you have a problem.
Why don't you go teabagging with a friend?
TMT
Hawke
Even I have to disagree with TMT on this one. You'll never stop crazy
sons of bitches from killing people by banning weapons. The only thing
strict restrictions accomplish is to take guns out of the hands of the
people who should have them. When you put draconian restrictions on gun
ownership all it does it empower the worst element of society and leave
the normal people at their mercy. We already have thousands of laws
restricting firearms. Adding a bunch more won't make the world any
safer. In fact it'll do the opposite. Restricting gun ownership
unnecessarily only puts the public at the mercy of criminals. I think
most people already know this but strong emotions about people getting
killed unnecessarily makes some people want to do stupid things. You
take away my guns and all it does it make me vulnerable and makes the
criminals more brazen. That's a good thing? I think not. I live in
California and I already have to jump through too many hoops to buy a
gun as it is. It's a joke.
Take this example. Every time I buy a gun I have to wait ten days. This
is supposedly a "cooling off" period so nuts can't just run down to the
sporting goods store, buy a gun, take it home, and shoot somebody with
it. That makes sense. Except for one thing. What if I already have a
dozen guns? If I want to shoot someone I can do it any time I want. So
what is the point of making me wait ten days every time I buy a firearm?
If you already own guns a waiting period is useless. The problem is no
one thinks these things out and even when they do they still won't
change the law. If a person is already a gun owner what good does it do
to put more restrictions on them? The point is adding even more gun
restriction laws accomplishes nothing, at least nothing good.
Hawke
Hawke
Do you really think that any law the would prevent a person who would go
out and kill four cops from getting a gun? If you know the answer is no,
that nothing would stop someone like that from obtaining a firearm then
why pass another law?
Hawke
Lib Loo
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hg4iqe$m2k$1...@aioe.org...
I'm quite surprised by your answer there Hawkie boy. There may be some hope
for you yet. Seeing how you have a dozen guns or so, and both you and TMT
live in California, anytime you want to test your theory be sure you have
the video rolling, ok? :)
Lib Loo
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbb52c27-3888-4255...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I think you may have a booming career then :)
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a24b7692-f60e-4721...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
You must care a great deal, because you know what I'm posting is the truth.
I've been teabagging your two mommies, they seem to enjoy it immensely.
Lib Loo
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.258f7b9...@news.bytemine.net...
> In article <hg392a$c7q$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> heez...@crazymother.kom says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.258eb7d...@news.bytemine.net...
>> > In article <dd6d50c5-8711-4782-afca-80cd56df1fb5
>> > @e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 12, 11:00 pm, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article <d4f68060-9302-4311-b040-69a0c3f79a5b@
>> >> > 19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, too_many_to...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Too many guns in the hands of too many irresponsible people.
>> >> >
>> >> > In each case those were known criminials..
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Time to get tougher.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Time for psych testing for gun purchases and gun ownership.
>> >> >
>> >> > > It could be paid for by a tax on gun owned and purchases of guns
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > ammo.
>> >> >
>> >> > > If you have money to buy a gun, you have the money to pay for the
>> >> > > testing.
>> >> >
>> >> > A quote from the end of the article..
>> >> > "The chances of being killed in the line of duty are lower than they
>> >> > have been in modern times," Morison said. "But no one is immune to
>> >> > the
>> >> > dangers of the job."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > TMT
>> >> >
>> >> > > Gun deaths tried to fray the thin blue line in '09
>> >> > > By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writer Colleen Long, Associated
>> >> > > Press Writer
>> >> > > Sat Dec 12, 2:40 pm ET
>> >> >
>> >> > > NEW YORK ? A police officer is gunned down in his patrol car in
>> >> > > Penn
>> >> > > Hills, Pa., while waiting for backup. Near Seattle, four officers
>> >> > > starting their day at a coffee shop are ambushed by an ex-con with
>> >> > > a
>> >> > > handgun. Another four officers are shot to death in Oakland,
>> >> > > Calif.,
>> >> > > after a traffic stop gone awry. Across the nation, 2009 was a
>> >> > > particularly perilous year for officers involved in gun disputes.
>> >> >
>> >> > > The number of officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire
>> >> > > increased
>> >> > > 24 percent from 2008, according to preliminary statistics compiled
>> >> > > by
>> >> > > the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a national
>> >> > > nonprofit organization that tracks officer-related deaths.
>> >> >
>> >> > > As of Saturday, 47 police officers have died nationwide this year
>> >> > > after being shot while on duty, up from 38 for the same time in
>> >> > > 2008,
>> >> > > which was the lowest number of gunfire deaths since 1956,
>> >> > > according
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > the data.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Over the past decade, small spikes in gunfire deaths have been
>> >> > > common,
>> >> > > but experts say they are surprised by the number of officers this
>> >> > > year
>> >> > > who have been specifically targeted by gunmen.
>> >> >
>> >> > > "There's an increasingly desperate population out there," said
>> >> > > Eugene
>> >> > > O'Donnell, a professor of police studies at the John Jay College
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > Criminal Justice in New York. "Other than in rare cases for
>> >> > > ideological reasons, we really haven't seen people taking on the
>> >> > > cops
>> >> > > head-to-head. Something is amiss. It should be cause for grave
>> >> > > concern."
>> >> >
>> >> > > Contributing to this year's spike are cases in which several
>> >> > > officers
>> >> > > were shot and killed in groups ? the four officers last month
>> >> > > outside
>> >> > > Seattle; the four officers in Oakland, Calif., in March; three
>> >> > > officers in Pittsburgh in April; and two officers in Okaloosa
>> >> > > County,
>> >> > > Fla., in April.
>> >> >
>> >> > > In the Nov. 29 shootings near Seattle, four Lakewood Police
>> >> > > Department
>> >> > > officers, all in uniform, were sitting with their laptops at a
>> >> > > bustling coffee shop when shots rang out. Authorities said the
>> >> > > gunman,
>> >> > > Maurice Clemmons, spared employees and other customers. Clemmons
>> >> > > was
>> >> > > later shot to death in a confrontation with another officer, who
>> >> > > wasn't harmed.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Clemmons had a violent, erratic past in Washington state and
>> >> > > Arkansas.
>> >> > > His 108-year prison sentence for armed robbery and other offenses
>> >> > > was
>> >> > > commuted by then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000. Six days
>> >> > > before
>> >> > > the shooting, he had posted bail on charges of raping a child.
>> >> >
>> >> > > In the April 4 shooting in Pittsburgh, suspect Richard Poplawski
>> >> > > has
>> >> > > been accused by prosecutors of ambushing the three officers when
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > responded to a domestic disturbance call. Wearing a bulletproof
>> >> > > vest
>> >> > > and armed with weapons including an AK-47 assault rifle, he
>> >> > > started
>> >> > > shooting almost immediately after they arrived, authorities said.
>> >> > > Poplawski has pleaded not guilty.
>> >> >
>> >> > > In other cases, it's not so clear whether the officers were
>> >> > > targeted,
>> >> > > or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oakland officers
>> >> > > Mark
>> >> > > Dunakin and John Hege were shot and killed during a traffic stop
>> >> > > March
>> >> > > 21. The suspect fled and barricaded himself in a home, where two
>> >> > > SWAT
>> >> > > officers were later shot and killed as they tried to enter.
>> >> >
>> >> > > In Penn Hills, Officer Michael Crawshaw was buried Friday, about a
>> >> > > week after police say he was gunned down by a parolee wearing an
>> >> > > electronic monitoring bracelet on his ankle. Crawshaw was
>> >> > > responding
>> >> > > to a 911 call of shots fired and was waiting for backup when the
>> >> > > suspect came out of the house and opened fire on his patrol car,
>> >> > > police said.
>> >> >
>> >> > > The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists
>> >> > > say.
>> >> > > But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer
>> >> > > deaths
>> >> > > so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country,
>> >> > > according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to
>> >> > > Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and
>> >> > > Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer
>> >> > > gun
>> >> > > deaths this year.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Kevin Morison, a spokesman for the Officers Memorial Fund, which
>> >> > > keeps
>> >> > > the statistics, said he sees people on both sides of the gun
>> >> > > debate
>> >> > > using the numbers to prove points.
>> >> >
>> >> > > "But folks who are willing to intentionally target police officers
>> >> > > seem to be able to find a way to accrue guns regardless of what
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > laws in those state would be," Morison said.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Overall gunfire deaths have more or less been on a steady decline
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > decades as more tools become available to keep officers safe. More
>> >> > > officers are required to wear bullet-resistant vests. There's also
>> >> > > better and faster medical care to save an officer's life.
>> >> >
>> >> > > In 1973, during a heyday of corruption and crime, there were
>> >> > > around
>> >> > > 600,000 officers and about 156 gunfire deaths. Currently, there
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > about 900,000 law enforcement officers nationwide and only 47
>> >> > > gunfire
>> >> > > deaths this year ? a per-capita decrease of nearly 21 percent.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Despite the increase in the number of gunfire deaths from 2008,
>> >> > > there
>> >> > > have been fewer overall officer deaths so far this year: 117,
>> >> > > compared
>> >> > > with 125 last year, according to the statistics. The major reason
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > that traffic deaths are down 24 percent.
>> >> >
>> >> > > "The chances of being killed in the line of duty are lower than
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > have been in modern times," Morison said. "But no one is immune to
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > dangers of the job."
>> >> >
>> >> > > ___
>> >> >
>> >> > > On the Net:
>> >> >
>> >> > > National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
>> >> > > Fund,http://www.nleomf.org- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> And the cops are just as dead.
>> >>
>> >> And the guns were in the hands of irresponsible owners.
>> >
>> > You just can't call them what they are can you ?
>> > The word is criminals...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The liberal straw buyer should be in jail.
>
>We don't know for a fact that it was a straw purchase.
We know it was an Obama voter though.
dca...@krl.org
> Take this example. Every time I buy a gun I have to wait ten days. This
> is supposedly a "cooling off" period so nuts can't just run down to the
> sporting goods store, buy a gun, take it home, and shoot somebody with
> it. That makes sense. Except for one thing. What if I already have a
> dozen guns? If I want to shoot someone I can do it any time I want. So
> what is the point of making me wait ten days every time I buy a firearm?
> If you already own guns a waiting period is useless. The problem is no
> one thinks these things out and even when they do they still won't
> change the law. If a person is already a gun owner what good does it do
> to put more restrictions on them? The point is adding even more gun
> restriction laws accomplishes nothing, at least nothing good.
>
> Hawke
Just curious. Could you apply to buy a gun say today, and not pick
out which gun or gun shop until say next fall? Or did the law makers
really intend to make buying a gun a big pain, and just use the idea
of a cooling off period as rational?
Dan
Dan
Dan
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Take this example. Every time I buy a gun I have to wait ten days. This
>is supposedly a "cooling off" period so nuts can't just run down to the
>sporting goods store, buy a gun, take it home, and shoot somebody with
>it. That makes sense. Except for one thing. What if I already have a
>dozen guns? If I want to shoot someone I can do it any time I want. So
>what is the point of making me wait ten days every time I buy a firearm?
What if your ex-husband said next time he sees you he's going to kill
you? Why should you have to wait ten days?
Steve B
Some states have cooling off periods for handguns but not for long guns. If
a person wants to kill another, and that person has no experience with guns,
a shotgun would be the ideal weapon. You just need one shell, and anyone
can point well enough to hit a target mortally with a shotgun.
"Lady, you can't take the 9mm semiautomatic home for ten days. But I do
have this cheap single shot twelve gauge, you can take it now, and I'll
gift wrap it."
RD (The Sandman)
news:4b2596fb$0$9316$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> "Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in
>> news:hg1mtk$5u5$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d4f68060-9302-4311-b040-69a0c3f79a5b@
I'm a liberal...pro gun but a liberal.
Michael A. Terrell
HH&C wrote:
>
> Lib Loo wrote:
> >
> > Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
>
> Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
What kind of weirdo would smoke a hairy cigar?
--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
Steve B
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JcSdnTs-C9eJ6bvW...@earthlink.com...
>
> HH&C wrote:
>>
>> Lib Loo wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
>>
>> Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
>
>
> What kind of weirdo would smoke a hairy cigar?
monica lewinsky?
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
news:h7hci55op000cru1g...@4ax.com...
Lib Loo
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:4ec496f2-c05f-4c5a...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
I don't think so, but I'm not in California either. In Illinois you have to
actually buy the gun and then pick it up after the waiting period. Here the
waiting period is 72 hours for handguns and 24 hrs for long guns.
Lib Loo
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE163487...@216.196.97.130...
You are excluded then, but only you :)
sta...@prolynx.com
retail. On that form is the make, model and serial for the gun you
intend to buy. Only after filling THAT out does the Brady "Insta-
Check"(not so instant in some states) get called in. In this state,
CO, after you pass that, you plunk down your money and walk away with
the arm. So, NO, you can't do what you say, the make, model and
serial is needed. Also, there's a definite expiration time on the
Brady check. You can buy two guns on one Brady check at the same
time, though three or more gets the ATF notified.
Also, if you lie on any of the questions on the 4473, they can come
and take you off to the fed crossbar hotel, same for buying a gun for
somebody you know is prohibited("straw-man sale"). And it's hard to
say what goes through state legislators' lack of minds. Some may
actually believe waiting periods are going to keep somebody from
committing suicide on the spot, I think it's more to make the process
such a pain that folks won't want to repeat it too many times. I know
I had to plan on hitting the gun shop on a Sat. two weeks after the
Fri.(payday) when buying a gun in CA, the day after the ten business
days were up. So TWO round trips to the store, not just one.
Stan
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good comments Hawke.
What I am saying is that once you own a gun, you are really
responsible for it.
If that gun is used in a crime, you are responsible for its use.
Enforcement of that responsibility would lower the death rate.
You would see owners taking gun ownership much more seriously if they
were truly responsible for the usage of any firearms they owned.
This would also cover any straw buyers.
TMT
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
There are quite a few of us.....some even in this newsgroup. There are
even some Democrats (I am not one of those) who belong to groups such as
the Democratic Freedom Caucus and Second Amendment Democrats. Look them
up in your Funk & Wagnalls. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
RD (The Sandman)
481e-ad7d-a...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
While you own it.
> If that gun is used in a crime, you are responsible for its use.
If that gun was used in a crime by you or if the gun was used in a crime
while you still owned it and had possession. Otherwise folks could sue
GM if a Buick was used in a drive-by? Is that the kind of world you wish
to live in?
> Enforcement of that responsibility would lower the death rate.
How?
> You would see owners taking gun ownership much more seriously if they
> were truly responsible for the usage of any firearms they owned.
They are, however, they should not be held responsible for it if they no
longer own it.....like if it is sold, transferred or stolen.
> This would also cover any straw buyers.
How?
Michael A. Terrell
She had no standards, though.
Hawke
Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
they come to nothing. Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon. If you
don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick one up.
I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some
of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous for a lot of
people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least semi proficient
with a gun you shouldn't have one. The point is some of the regulations
on guns are good but many are not. The problem is that some people just
want to keep adding more and more of them in the vain hope it will make
the world safe. I'm for sensible and minimal gun regulation. We are way
past that in California.
Hawke
Hawke
If you look at the statistics what you will find is that almost all gun
owners are responsible and use them properly. As is always the case a
small number of fools and people out to profit make it bad for everyone
else. If you look at the number of people with CCW permits you find
almost no crime there. Those people are responsible. It's the gang
bangers and the people who make money from selling guns that cause the
trouble. The problem is it's virtually impossible to stop those people
from doing bad things by passing laws. Laws only work on the law abiding
and by definition those people are not trouble makers to begin with. All
we can do is try to prevent the wrong people from getting their hands on
guns (very hard to do) and punish those who prove dangerous to others or
who provide guns to people who should not have them. For everybody else
we need to do as little as possible. But then that would be sensible and
our gun laws seem to be lacking in common sense, at least in California.
One more example of legislative insanity. California just passed a law
requiring you to sign and show I.D. every time you buy handgun
ammunition. It takes effect next year. I can guarantee that law will
accomplish nothing other than to make it difficult for the law abiding
to buy ammunition. Buying ammo over the internet will be illegal. The
law will not deter one criminal from committing any crime. This is a
perfect example of what they call bad law. Actually it's worse, it's
stupid law.
Hawke
Tommy Shannon
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Take this example. Every time I buy a gun I have to wait ten days.
>>> This is supposedly a "cooling off" period so nuts can't just run down
>>> to the sporting goods store, buy a gun, take it home, and shoot
>>> somebody with it. That makes sense. Except for one thing. What if I
>>> already have a dozen guns? If I want to shoot someone I can do it any
>>> time I want. So what is the point of making me wait ten days every
>>> time I buy a firearm?
>>
>>
>> What if your ex-husband said next time he sees you he's going to kill
>> you? Why should you have to wait ten days?
> Several reasons.
First of all people make death threats all the time and
> they come to nothing.
Except when goofy men like you Do murder there wives or girlfriends.
> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
Guns are very safe items.
Idiots like YOU are what is dangerous.
> If you
> don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick one up.
But you just said that people make death threats all the time, and that
they should not be taken as a threat!
If you have a mind, can you make one up?
> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others.
Liar. You have never been to ANY "gun club."
Name it!
> Some
> of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
> knowing how to clear a malfunction.I'm for sensible and minimal gun regulation. We are way
> past that in California.
You are a Homo.
John R. Carroll
Not at all.
>Buying ammo over the internet will be illegal.
Sure, dumbass. The State wants the tax revenue.
>The
> law will not deter one criminal from committing any crime.
It won't prevent purchases of ammunition either.
--
John R. Carroll
Lib Loo
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hg94ug$5cl$1...@aioe.org...
> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon tests
> and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some of them
> barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone knowing
> how to clear a malfunction.
I too find this statement hard to believe, as a holder of several
certificates. This could not happen and proves that Hawke is stretching the
truth here. For example, the two most popular certificates are Utah and
Florida, since owning these two gets you the maximum amount of States,
unless you are a Michigan resident. A Michigan resident permit is the most
widely accepted.
The Utah permit does not require a live ammo demonstration or range time, so
it's hard to imagine an instructor for a Utah class putting himself at risk
at a gun club, with live ammo in the hands of someone who doesn't know which
end the bullet comes out of is absurd. Better to just teach the class, take
the students money, and give the certificate. There is too much at risk
insofar as lawsuits and losing the certification as an instructor, which is
not such an easy certification to have (costs, travel to Utah, etc.)
Florida requires previous gun training such as hunting training or military
service as examples. Lacking that, the candidate must have training from an
NRA certified instructor. Before you even get to hold any live rounds, you
have already learned the basics of which way to point the barrel, keeping
your finger off the trigger, keeping the gun unloaded until ready to shoot,
etc. The curriculum is quite clear and must be taught by the book. There is
a written test that must be passed, and it covers the key points that are
taught in the class.
No NRA instructor is going to risk losing his certification, or put himself
at risk for being sued by one of his students. Because of this, I'm going to
have to go along with Tommy Shannon and conclude that Hack has never been to
any gun club or even held a firearm in his hands, load, unloaded, or even
seen one up close.
I must admit, he did have me believing him in his earlier posts, but now
everything is in doubt, his 250 lb. physique, his strong wrists, his
marksmanship abilities, all of it. His statement above is one made out of
ignorance, and anyone who has walked the walk knows he is lying. It is my
belief that he is another happy gun grabber like TMT, opening his mouth out
of ignorance, and limp wristedness.
Lib Loo
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd9d0558-1fe0-481e...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Your statements are ridiculous. If your gun was impounded overnight by the
police, and someone at the station took it a shot up the station, how are
you responsible? Nitwit.
Lib Loo
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE2720EE...@216.196.97.130...
Some liberals are not a problem, but those are the true liberals of
yesteryear, not the limp wristed candy-assed progressive liberals that have
hijacked liberalism. Sleep well yourself.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Take this example. Every time I buy a gun I have to wait ten days. This
>>> is supposedly a "cooling off" period so nuts can't just run down to the
>>> sporting goods store, buy a gun, take it home, and shoot somebody with
>>> it. That makes sense. Except for one thing. What if I already have a
>>> dozen guns? If I want to shoot someone I can do it any time I want. So
>>> what is the point of making me wait ten days every time I buy a firearm?
>>
>> What if your ex-husband said next time he sees you he's going to kill
>> you? Why should you have to wait ten days?
>>
>
>
>Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
>they come to nothing.
People make death threats all the time and they result in death. So
perhaps you can tell us how to separate the "real" ones from the
"imagined" ones?
>Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
[blink] [blink]
No, really?
>If you
>don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick one up.
It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
>I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some
>of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
>knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous for a lot of
>people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least semi proficient
>with a gun you shouldn't have one.
You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
30 minutes.
>The point is some of the regulations
>on guns are good but many are not. The problem is that some people just
>want to keep adding more and more of them in the vain hope it will make
>the world safe.
We're not talking about making the world safe. We're talking about the
90 lb. brunette who's ex-husband said he's coming over to kill her
tomorrow.
Lib Loo
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Eeidnbyl449qYLrW...@earthlink.com...
Neither did her cigar store indian boyfriend with the pantsuit wife.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> In talk.politics.guns Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> What if your ex-husband said next time he sees you he's going to kill
>> you? Why should you have to wait ten days?
>>
>>
>
> Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
> they come to nothing.
A smart person takes death threats seriously, all it takes is once for
the bad guy. That self defense against death threats is often persecuted
shows a decided flaw in our system. The solution to death threats is to
immediately kill the aggressor.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> Hawke wrote:
<snip>
>>The
>> law will not deter one criminal from committing any crime.
>
> It won't prevent purchases of ammunition either.
So why pass unenforceable, unconstitutional laws then?
HH&C
wrote:
> HH&C wrote:
>
> > Lib Loo wrote:
>
> > > Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
>
> > Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
>
> What kind of weirdo would smoke a hairy cigar?
About half of Obama's cabinet.
Bill Noble
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:t56dnTTOtOExtbXW...@giganews.com...
> Hawke wrote:
>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>> On Dec 13, 11:35 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 13, 8:29 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 13, 8:17 am, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>> One more example of legislative insanity. California just passed a law
>> requiring you to sign and show I.D. every time you buy handgun
>> ammunition. It takes effect next year. I can guarantee that law will
>> accomplish nothing other than to make it difficult for the law abiding
>> to buy ammunition.
>
> Not at all.
>
so, please explain how showing ID makes it "difficult to buy ammunition" do
you lack ID? Is your ID difficult to locate? Do you have a handicap that
makes signing difficult?
John R. Carroll
Believe it or not, California requires ID for all.
It is literally against the law for a person not to be able to identify
themselves with some approved form of identification.
Enforcement is selective, but it's the law none the less.
>Do you
> have a handicap that makes signing difficult?
Any handicap that would make signing difficult would also make using a hand
gun impossible.
An individuals right to keep and bear arms isn't anonymous, nor does it
extend to gift giving.
Anyway, the real purpose here is to collect tax revenue.
--
John R. Carroll
cyc...@hotmail.com
in 1997 when T Blair first got in about the first thing the Labour
Party did was to ban private ownership of Handguns.
Result
Gun crime has risen steadily ever since.
Violent crime not involving guns has also gone up.
I think this is enough proof that the wrong sort of legislation for
Gun ownership is bad.
Having said that. licensing of guns and measuring profficiency in
their use is necessary. There are some quite ordinary, very nice
people who I would hate to think could just buy a firearm.. I am sure
everyone can think of one or two themselves.
regards
Blinky Bill
<cyc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a088f8b-d0f8-47ec...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> Adding my 2c worth as an Englishman.
>
> in 1997 when T Blair first got in about the first thing the Labour
> Party did was to ban private ownership of Handguns.
>
> Result
> Gun crime has risen steadily ever since.
The Home Office says it has been falling since 2002-3.
Klaus Schadenfreude
wrote:
So if licensing and proficiency could be improved, do you think people
in the UK should be able to buy a handgun?
Larry Jaques
<nos...@anytime.com> scrawled the following:
The Home Office also says that you have enough police, they do their
job well and in a timely fashion, and that crime is not a problem in
the UK. In reality, the crime rate is higher -there- than here in the
USA and you can googlit for proof. How are you going to believe the
Home Office?
--
Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm).
-----------
SaPeIsMa
The problem is with that kind of attitude, the list of people who are
disqualified tends to grow exponentially with time, untill you reach the
point that Englaind is at where EVERYONE is disqualified
It's called a "slippery slope"
Hawke
It's pretty simple but that doesn't seem to have helped you. Ammunition
isn't something you can walk into any store and buy. You can only find
it in a few specialty type stores. Then they don't always have a good
selection and may not carry what you want. Say if you want to buy 10mm
ammo. Then if you don't live in a large city there are even fewer places
to purchase ammo. Where I live there are about four places that carry
ammunition, they have a lousy selection, and lately the shelves have
been empty. So the fact is ammo isn't that easy to come by. I can order
anything I want over the internet right now. When the law comes into
effect the only way I will be able to buy that ammo is locally. It'll
also be more expensive because the businesses will charge higher prices
knowing you can't get it anywhere else. Signing your name and proving ID
isn't what will cause the problems it's the other stuff. Which I guess
you never thought about.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
>> they come to nothing.
>
> People make death threats all the time and they result in death. So
> perhaps you can tell us how to separate the "real" ones from the
> "imagined" ones?
Just like Lib Loo you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe
it's just lack of experience or just plain ignorance I don't know. But I
do know that guys make all kinds of threats all the time and 99% of the
time they never act on them. All you have to do is go to a bar and
you'll hear people threaten each other all the time. But maybe you just
hand around wimpy men who are completely non violent. Try hanging around
some actual men and you will learn otherwise. All kinds of threats get
tossed around all the time. Ask a cop how many times he's heard someone
say they are going to kill someone. Most people who kill someone don't
advertise it beforehand.
>> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
>
> [blink] [blink]
>
> No, really?
Uh, yeah, really. People who actually have guns and use them have a lot
of respect for them. You know why? They are really dangerous. People get
accidentally killed and badly hurt from them all the time. Anyone who
doesn't understand the potential danger from a handgun is a moron.
>> If you
>> don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick one up.
>
> It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
Again, a completely ignorant statement. A car is easy to drive too.
Little kids can do it. But there is more to it than simply operating the
controls. If you are an experienced gun hand you know that. Clearly you
are not.
>> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some
>> of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
>> knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous for a lot of
>> people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least semi proficient
>> with a gun you shouldn't have one.
>
> You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
> 30 minutes.
You can pick up a revolver, point it, and pull the trigger and hit a man
sized target in about two minutes. That doesn't make you safe to be
around with a loaded weapon.
>> The point is some of the regulations
>> on guns are good but many are not. The problem is that some people just
>> want to keep adding more and more of them in the vain hope it will make
>> the world safe.
>
> We're not talking about making the world safe. We're talking about the
> 90 lb. brunette who's ex-husband said he's coming over to kill her
> tomorrow.
Do you know that a lot of cops that are killed are shot with their own
guns? That's a fact. How do you think that happens? Cops carry guns
every day and it's not uncommon for them to have their guns taken away
from them and used against them. Give an ignorant, scared 90 lb. woman a
guns she's not familiar with and has no training with and the odds are
in a real attack the gun would do her no good and would likely end up in
the attackers hands. Only ignorant people think you can just hand a gun
to someone who knows nothing about them and they will be both safe and
able to defend themselves with it.
Hawke
Michael A. Terrell
Only half?
Michael A. Terrell
Lib Loo wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Eeidnbyl449qYLrW...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > Steve B wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:JcSdnTs-C9eJ6bvW...@earthlink.com...
> >> >
> >> > HH&C wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Lib Loo wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What kind of weirdo would smoke a hairy cigar?
> >>
> >> monica lewinsky?
> >
> >
> > She had no standards, though.
>
> Neither did her cigar store indian boyfriend with the pantsuit wife.
At least those cigar store indians don't lie to you.
Hawke
Non gun people have a lot of ideas about guns that are simply wrong. One
of which is that it is easy for people to use guns to defend themselves.
I'm here to tell you it's not all that easy. I belong to a gun club. One
of the things we do there is administer the tests to people who want a
concealed carry permit in the state of California. You must pass both a
written and a proficiency test to get a license to carry. While most
people are capable enough to pass this test you would be surprised how
many are not and how many are borderline.
I have witnessed numerous senior citizens who take these tests. The
thought of them having a gun on them is scary. They cannot clear jams in
semi autos, some can barely pull the trigger on revolvers, some of them
are so shaky they can't hit anything. I've seen women so afraid of the
guns they can't hit anything. I've seen men who cannot pass the accuracy
part of the test. In my state you have to put 26 out of 30 shots in a
pretty small area. This can be easy if you have a large and accurate
gun. If you are shooting a small caliber, short barreled gun this can be
very hard. Most people want these "mouse guns" for concealed carry. They
are not easy to shoot accurately.
It's a fallacy that you can give a gun to anyone and they can use it to
effectively protect themselves or others. I am an experienced shooter so
I know. If you don't practice regularly with your weapon and if you
aren't familiar with firearms you will not be able to use the weapon in
a stressful situation. Then you have the question of whether you can
actually use a deadly weapon on another human being. Many people cannot.
When you consider those things and when you see people actually using
firearms it is easy to see that you can't just hand firearms over to
anyone. If you do a lot of innocent people will get killed. The
advantage of being the libertarian is that when that happens to other
people you don't care.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In my state you have to put 26 out of 30 shots in a pretty small area.
> This can be easy if you have a large and accurate gun. If you are
> shooting a small caliber, short barreled gun this can be very hard. Most
> people want these "mouse guns" for concealed carry. They are not easy to
> shoot accurately.
Most people couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards with a handgun let alone a
moving, man-sized, target under pressure.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dca...@krl.org
> Most people couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards with a handgun let alone a
> moving, man-sized, target under pressure.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
Fifty yards is a long ways with a handgun. Normal target shooting only
does slow fire at fifty yards.
Dan
Hawke
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:24:36 -0800, Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In my state you have to put 26 out of 30 shots in a pretty small area.
>> This can be easy if you have a large and accurate gun. If you are
>> shooting a small caliber, short barreled gun this can be very hard. Most
>> people want these "mouse guns" for concealed carry. They are not easy to
>> shoot accurately.
>
> Most people couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards with a handgun let alone a
> moving, man-sized, target under pressure.
>
This is true. It's only people who don't know anything about guns that
think it's easy to hit your target with a handgun. The truth is that it
is ridiculously hard to hit most anything with a handgun unless you
really know what you are doing. Add pressure and movement and it gets
nearly impossible.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
True but we're speaking of quick response, not targets. Most people
couldn't fast-draw and hit a barn let alone an attacker at close range.
That takes practice, at least for me.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Precisely.
Personally I practice fast-draw every couple of months or _I_ can't hit
the broad side of a barn.
Lib Loo
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hgbhu6$3qd$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>> Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
>>> they come to nothing.
>>
>> People make death threats all the time and they result in death. So
>> perhaps you can tell us how to separate the "real" ones from the
>> "imagined" ones?
>
> Just like Lib Loo you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's
> just lack of experience or just plain ignorance I don't know. But I do
> know that guys make all kinds of threats all the time and 99% of the time
> they never act on them. All you have to do is go to a bar and you'll hear
> people threaten each other all the time. But maybe you just hand around
> wimpy men who are completely non violent. Try hanging around some actual
> men and you will learn otherwise. All kinds of threats get tossed around
> all the time. Ask a cop how many times he's heard someone say they are
> going to kill someone. Most people who kill someone don't advertise it
> beforehand.
>
I'm pretty sure the person you responded to (not sure who it is actually
since you obviously don't know how to quote properly), meant people who make
death threats. He wasn't talking about the kind of threats you are used to
at the gay bars.
Note that the poster mentioned death threats, while you and your real men
threats are non-specific in your diatribe. Here's a link to Hack's real men,
spot the threat maker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVxGd4RsDok
HH&C
wrote:
> HH&C wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 12:21 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > HH&C wrote:
>
> > > > Lib Loo wrote:
>
> > > > > Can you roll cigars on your inner thigh?
>
> > > > Yes, but I won't shave my legs.
>
> > > What kind of weirdo would smoke a hairy cigar?
>
> > About half of Obama's cabinet.
>
> Only half?
I don't like to over estimate. I have a reputation to protect.
David R.Birch
> so, please explain how showing ID makes it "difficult to buy ammunition"
> do you lack ID? Is your ID difficult to locate? Do you have a handicap
> that makes signing difficult?
Some stores may decide that it's not worth the bother of having to
train their employees to maintain the record book you have to sign.
One less ammo vendor and the others will raise prices as competition
disappears.
The point of the anti-gunners is to raise the hassle level, not to
deter crime.
David
Michael A. Terrell
100% would only be off a percent or two. ;-)
Hawke
I was at a gun club tonight and they had forms they were passing out for
people to sign that were intended to repeal the law we're talking about.
I don't know how the campaign will go but I'm all for it. Many years ago
we had to sign for ammo. It was stupid, didn't do a damn thing to
prevent crime. Now it's back again and it's just as useless. I'd sure
like to know what made Schwarzennegger sign that stupid thing.
Hawke
Bill McKee
Idiocy? Why the hell is the govenator over in Copenhagen? I see no
improvement in state finances from it. How much state money is being spent
for the trip?
SaPeIsMa
>
>>> Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
>>> they come to nothing.
>>
>> People make death threats all the time and they result in death. So
>> perhaps you can tell us how to separate the "real" ones from the
>> "imagined" ones?
>
> Just like Lib Loo you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's
> just lack of experience or just plain ignorance I don't know. But I do
> know that guys make all kinds of threats all the time and 99% of the time
> they never act on them. All you have to do is go to a bar and you'll hear
> people threaten each other all the time. But maybe you just hand around
> wimpy men who are completely non violent. Try hanging around some actual
> men and you will learn otherwise. All kinds of threats get tossed around
> all the time. Ask a cop how many times he's heard someone say they are
> going to kill someone. Most people who kill someone don't advertise it
> beforehand.
>
Amazing how your thinking is flawed..
To summarize your way of thinking
"I'm surrounded by manly men who threaten each other all the time.
If you are not threatened all the time, you must hang out with wimps..
Also, since I hang around with manly men who threaten each other all the
time, it's OK for you to ignore any threats made against you.."
For the record, in my youger days, in a different place and time, I hung
around with a bunch of men manly enough to wear regimental kilts, and who by
trade were professional soldiers, and whose regiment was light infantry,
which means schouts and snipers and pathfinders.
These knew at least a good dozen ways to kill you in their sleep and even
more when they were awake.
And yet sober or drunk, I never heard one of them ever utter a threat
against another, because they knew that most likely they would not sleep as
soundly at night if the other took them seriously.
So where does that leave the "manly men who make all kinds of threats all
the time" that you hang out with ?
Frankly the fact that they need to "make all kinds of threats all the
time" suggests that they are more wimpy than manly and rely on bluster to
define who they are.
>
>>> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
>>
>> [blink] [blink]
>>
>> No, really?
>
>
> Uh, yeah, really. People who actually have guns and use them have a lot of
> respect for them. You know why? They are really dangerous. People get
> accidentally killed and badly hurt from them all the time. Anyone who
> doesn't understand the potential danger from a handgun is a moron.
>
Funny though that in the us the accidental death rate of guns is less than
1000 a year, while accidental car deaths are over 42,000 a year
And a great many of those are children and adults shooting themselves or
others in households where guns are often illegal for one reason or other
What does that tell you ?
What it tells me is that the great majority of gun owners are aware that a
gun just like any other tool can cause great harm if used negligently
Too bad we can't say the same about people who own cars. (Just look at
the numbers)
>>> If you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick
>>> one up.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
>
> Again, a completely ignorant statement. A car is easy to drive too. Little
> kids can do it. But there is more to it than simply operating the
> controls. If you are an experienced gun hand you know that. Clearly you
> are not.
>
Nonsense
Cars don't have that many more "operating controls than guns"
And children are exposed to cars far sooner than they are to guns, both in
real life and the media.
So they are pretty clued in about which "controls" do what for a car at a
young age.
My kids had already figured out the basic steps of driving a car before age
5. (I know because I asked them).
So to use your words on you
"If you were an experienced driver you would know that. Clearly you are
not."
>
>>> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>>> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some
>>> of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
>>> knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous for a lot of
>>> people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least semi proficient
>>> with a gun you shouldn't have one.
>>
>> You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
>> 30 minutes.
>
> You can pick up a revolver, point it, and pull the trigger and hit a man
> sized target in about two minutes. That doesn't make you safe to be around
> with a loaded weapon.
>
Agreed, but so what
You can pick up a set of cars keys and start driving in about he same amount
of time
Same argument applies to cars
So what is you point exactly ?
>
>>> The point is some of the regulations on guns are good but many are not.
>>> The problem is that some people just want to keep adding more and more
>>> of them in the vain hope it will make the world safe.
>>
>> We're not talking about making the world safe. We're talking about the
>> 90 lb. brunette who's ex-husband said he's coming over to kill her
>> tomorrow.
>
> Do you know that a lot of cops that are killed are shot with their own
> guns? That's a fact. How do you think that happens? Cops carry guns every
> day and it's not uncommon for them to have their guns taken away from them
> and used against them.
Your whole premise is based on false presumptions and even falser examples
that are SPECIFICALLY created to justify yourself.
Cops being shot with their own weapons happens less often than a cop being
run over
And the REASON that cops get shot with their own weapons has to do with WHAT
cops are REQUIRED to do(something that does NO apply to citizens defending
temselcve)
Cops are required to ARREST, DETAIN and CONFINE individuals who may
often prove recalcitrant
A person defending themselves are under NO SUCH CONSTRAINT
So right there your argument is a false one
> Give an ignorant, scared 90 lb. woman a guns she's not familiar with and
> has no training with and the odds are in a real attack the gun would do
> her no good and would likely end up in the attackers hands. Only ignorant
> people think you can just hand a gun to someone who knows nothing about
> them and they will be both safe and able to defend themselves with it.
>
You keep raising these false examples. (One has to wonder about your
intellectual honesty)
So the answer to that is give the ignorant 90lb woman a gun and INCLUDE 30
minutes of basic training and about 60 minutes of range time.
But even so, for that 90 lb woman, having a gun WITH NO TRAINING AT ALL, is
better than being empty handed and defenseless, if she is facing that 200 lb
rapist.
I takes about 30 minutes to drill into most people
1) The 4 basic safety rules of guns
2) Basic operating techiniques for using a revolver
I know because I have done it with adults and kids
And that is all they need to
a) load and use something as simple as a revolver
b) hit a target at close range
c) NOT be a danger to themselves or others near them.
Your whole premise is based on false presumptions and even falser examples
that are SPECIFICALLY created to justify yourself.
SaPeIsMa
Ironically, it's always people like you who argue all sorts of fallacies as
you have done here and in other posts
You constantly argue with exceptions and KNOWINGLY CHOOSE to ignore the
simple fact that your exceptions are exactly that
EXCEPTIONS
And exceptions DO NOT make the rule.
And by the way, most of the exceptions you argue can be resolved if
a) the person in question is open-minded to change their selection of
agun
b) the instructor involved takes the time to suggest alternatives to
them
SaPeIsMa
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:e9d2ea72-2ccf-42af...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 9:56 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> Most people couldn't hit a barn at 50 yards with a handgun let alone a
> moving, man-sized, target under pressure.
#
# Fifty yards is a long ways with a handgun. Normal target shooting only
# does slow fire at fifty yards.
Are you not surprised at curly's ignorance of such a simple fact
Are we even less surprised at him using such as an example for anything BUT
a demonstration of ignorance ?
SaPeIsMa
More nonsense
It all depends on the distances involved
And let's not forget that most self-defense situations fall withing the rule
of 3 shots, 3 seconds, 3 yards.
I can teach a beginner, in about 60 minutes, to hit anything at less than 5
yards just using point-and-shoot.
Many can even do it for moving targets and moving shooter scenarios within
that time frame.
In most cases, you spend more time addressing preconceived myths and
misinformation than teaching actuall technique.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>>> Several reasons. First of all people make death threats all the time and
>>> they come to nothing.
>>
>> People make death threats all the time and they result in death. So
>> perhaps you can tell us how to separate the "real" ones from the
>> "imagined" ones?
>
>Just like Lib Loo you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe
>it's just lack of experience or just plain ignorance I don't know. But I
>do know that guys make all kinds of threats all the time and 99% of the
>time they never act on them.
[chuckle]
99% huh? Which orifice did you pull this figure out of?
>All you have to do is go to a bar and
>you'll hear people threaten each other all the time.
We're not talking about you and your drunken friends.
> Ask a cop how many times he's heard someone
>say they are going to kill someone. Most people who kill someone don't
>advertise it beforehand.
Waiting for you to come up with your cite on that one. Take all the
room you need.
>>> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
>>
>> [blink] [blink]
>>
>> No, really?
>
>
>Uh, yeah, really. People who actually have guns and use them have a lot
>of respect for them. You know why? They are really dangerous. People get
>accidentally killed and badly hurt from them all the time. Anyone who
>doesn't understand the potential danger from a handgun is a moron.
Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about guns! Golly!
>>> If you
>>> don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just pick one up.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
>
>Again, a completely ignorant statement. A car is easy to drive too.
>Little kids can do it. But there is more to it than simply operating the
>controls. If you are an experienced gun hand you know that. Clearly you
>are not.
I see. So just having a gun, why, that's not going to help you at all,
huh?
>>> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>>> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others. Some
>>> of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone
>>> knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous for a lot of
>>> people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least semi proficient
>>> with a gun you shouldn't have one.
>>
>> You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
>> 30 minutes.
>
>You can pick up a revolver, point it, and pull the trigger and hit a man
>sized target in about two minutes. That doesn't make you safe to be
>around with a loaded weapon.
Really? Why not?
>>> The point is some of the regulations
>>> on guns are good but many are not. The problem is that some people just
>>> want to keep adding more and more of them in the vain hope it will make
>>> the world safe.
>>
>> We're not talking about making the world safe. We're talking about the
>> 90 lb. brunette who's ex-husband said he's coming over to kill her
>> tomorrow.
>
>Do you know that a lot of cops that are killed are shot with their own
>guns? That's a fact.
You think maybe we should take guns away from cops?
> How do you think that happens? Cops carry guns
>every day and it's not uncommon for them to have their guns taken away
>from them and used against them.
Really? No uncommon? Suppose you tell me how often this happens, say,
every year.
Out of X armed cops on the street, Y get their guns taken away and
used against them. Solve for X and Y.
>Give an ignorant, scared 90 lb. woman a
>guns she's not familiar with and has no training with and the odds are
>in a real attack the gun would do her no good and would likely end up in
>the attackers hands.
What are those odds?
Bama Brian
Couple of flies in that particular jar of ointment, Hawke.
First, I am eminently NOT qualified to decide which persons in a free
society should have guns, for whatever reason - except for convicted
criminals. And neither are you. You picked on senior citizens for an
example, a group I am a member of. Yes, some are quite infirm, and some
are quite shaky - but that does not mean they should be disbarred the
RKBA. In certain cases, such as Alzheimers, I can understand it - but
these poor souls can no longer make an intelligent effort to get a gun.
But I'd rather have old arthritic grannie armed with a .22 than with
just her bare hands when young Otis Droogie decides she might have a
little money stashed away in her inner city poverty level apartment.
Yes, I'd like to have old arthritic grannie out there practicing, but
you know what? It's a FREE country and she shouldn't have to jump
through your idea of hoops.
As to that crack about Libertarians - blow it out your shorts, boy. You
have yet to develop a brain, let alone compassion for your fellow man.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
dca...@krl.org
> What state issues concealed carry permits based on successfully
> passing a three yard pistol course? BTW, "most" doesn't include those
> others that were at further distances. If one could count on
> shootings being a three yards, police departments wouldn't use 25 and
> 50 yard qualification courses.
There is not a lot of point in having CCW persons qualified at 50
yards. If the target is 50 yards away, you are not likely to be in
danger.
Dan
Hawke
> Amazing how your thinking is flawed..
> To summarize your way of thinking
> "I'm surrounded by manly men who threaten each other all the time.
> If you are not threatened all the time, you must hang out with wimps..
Let me summarize your assumptions, baseless of course. I never said a
word about me personally being surrounded by anyone, let alone manly men
or any other kind. As for hanging around wimps or unmanly men it goes
without saying if you do you are not going to hear the same things you
would where macho guys hang out.
> Also, since I hang around with manly men who threaten each other all the
> time, it's OK for you to ignore any threats made against you.."
Another assumption, I hang around with men who threaten each other.
Incorrect. I don't but it's a fact that threats made by most men are not
carried out. And I do ignore most threats I've heard from guys. Only
when I judge it serious do I do anything about it. It's all about the
judgment.
> For the record, in my youger days, in a different place and time, I hung
> around with a bunch of men manly enough to wear regimental kilts, and
> who by trade were professional soldiers, and whose regiment was light
> infantry, which means schouts and snipers and pathfinders.
> These knew at least a good dozen ways to kill you in their sleep and
> even more when they were awake.
> And yet sober or drunk, I never heard one of them ever utter a threat
> against another, because they knew that most likely they would not sleep
> as soundly at night if the other took them seriously.
> So where does that leave the "manly men who make all kinds of threats
> all the time" that you hang out with ?
Flawed thinking on your part again. So you hung around with manly men,
eh? None of that group threatened each other. Did I not say that men who
actually kill are not likely to warn you first? It is the ones who
talk big and make threats that don't usually carry them out, and you
don't seem to know that. Also, your experience with a small group
doesn't translate to men in general. But that is where you go for your
proof. Sorry but the exception, soldiers, doesn't prove the rule.
> Frankly the fact that they need to "make all kinds of threats all the
> time" suggests that they are more wimpy than manly and rely on bluster
> to define who they are.
This time you misread. Men make all kinds of threats all the time is
plural. I didn't say individual men make threats all the time. A man may
make a threat at one time or another. That is different from men in
general making threats all the time. But it is true that lots of men
make threats all the time. How do I know? Well, in California it's
against the law to make what is called a terrorist threat. This means
making threats of violence against someone. You know what? Thousands of
men get arrested for this every year. Most of the time the threats are
against their wives or girlfriends. I got this information first hand
from law enforcement. The point is lots of men are making lots of
threats. Just a fact. That's all.
>>>> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
>>>
>>> [blink] [blink]
>>>
>>> No, really?
>>
>>
>> Uh, yeah, really. People who actually have guns and use them have a
>> lot of respect for them. You know why? They are really dangerous.
>> People get accidentally killed and badly hurt from them all the time.
>> Anyone who doesn't understand the potential danger from a handgun is a
>> moron.
>>
>
> Funny though that in the us the accidental death rate of guns is less
> than 1000 a year, while accidental car deaths are over 42,000 a year
> And a great many of those are children and adults shooting themselves or
> others in households where guns are often illegal for one reason or other
> What does that tell you ?
> What it tells me is that the great majority of gun owners are aware that
> a gun just like any other tool can cause great harm if used negligently
> Too bad we can't say the same about people who own cars. (Just look
> at the numbers)
Nice of you to only include people killed by guns accidentally, as if
that is all the people who die from guns every year. Your comparison to
cars is silly. Cars are the main form of transportation in the country
and millions of people drive millions of miles a year. Guns are rarely a
necessity for most people. Even people who own guns use them
infrequently. So what ever you were trying to prove with your numbers it
didn't add up. I would say if 1,000 people a year die from something by
accident that thing is pretty damn dangerous.
>
>>>> If you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just
>>>> pick one up.
>>>
>>> It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
>>
>> Again, a completely ignorant statement. A car is easy to drive too.
>> Little kids can do it. But there is more to it than simply operating
>> the controls. If you are an experienced gun hand you know that.
>> Clearly you are not.
>>
>
> Nonsense
> Cars don't have that many more "operating controls than guns"
> And children are exposed to cars far sooner than they are to guns, both
> in real life and the media.
> So they are pretty clued in about which "controls" do what for a car at
> a young age.
> My kids had already figured out the basic steps of driving a car before
> age 5. (I know because I asked them).
So then why can't kids get licenses? You seem to think driving is so
simple kids can do it why restrict them? Is it operating the vehicle
itself that is easy but being a safe and responsible driver that is not?
If that is so it's a matter of maturity and experience not actual
ability to operate the vehicle that matters. It's the same with guns.
It's not usually whether someone can operate the firearm it's a question
of whether they should or not.
> So to use your words on you
> "If you were an experienced driver you would know that. Clearly you
> are not."
All you would have to do to know if I was an experienced driver is to
ask about my record. How many years licensed, how many miles driven, how
many accidents, etc. The idea you would have to find out by logic is not
logical.
>>>> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>>>> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others.
>>>> Some of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of,
>>>> let alone knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous
>>>> for a lot of people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least
>>>> semi proficient with a gun you shouldn't have one.
>>>
>>> You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
>>> 30 minutes.
That's your opinion. I've heard NRA certified instructors who would
disagree. I would disagree and I've had NRA training myself. I could say
the same about fighting. You can learn the basics of how to punch, kick,
and defend in a half an hour too. You wouldn't fare too well in a fight
though.
>> You can pick up a revolver, point it, and pull the trigger and hit a
>> man sized target in about two minutes. That doesn't make you safe to
>> be around with a loaded weapon.
>>
>
> Agreed, but so what
> You can pick up a set of cars keys and start driving in about he same
> amount of time
> Same argument applies to cars
> So what is you point exactly ?
The point is it's not about the simplicity of just being able to point a
weapon and pull the trigger when you are being attacked. Just like there
is a lot more to driving than just learning the basics. Take a look at
how many car accidents teenagers have compared to older adults. It's far
worse for the teenagers yet they know the operation as well as older
folks and they have better senses. It's experience and judgment. It's
the same with guns. Most mentally deficient persons can operate a
revolver but would you trust them to have one? Your idea that you can
just hand someone a weapon, show them how it works, and they are good to
go in a fight is just plain dumb.
>> Do you know that a lot of cops that are killed are shot with their own
>> guns? That's a fact. How do you think that happens? Cops carry guns
>> every day and it's not uncommon for them to have their guns taken away
>> from them and used against them.
>
> Your whole premise is based on false presumptions and even falser
> examples that are SPECIFICALLY created to justify yourself.
>
> Cops being shot with their own weapons happens less often than a cop
> being run over
> And the REASON that cops get shot with their own weapons has to do with
> WHAT cops are REQUIRED to do(something that does NO apply to citizens
> defending temselcve)
> Cops are required to ARREST, DETAIN and CONFINE individuals who may
> often prove recalcitrant
> A person defending themselves are under NO SUCH CONSTRAINT
> So right there your argument is a false one
You think that because you missed the point. Point is cops are trained
to use weapons and it's an everyday tool for them. But in reality even
they lose their weapons in fights. If that can happen to a male police
officer how easy would it be to take a gun away from the 90 lb. female
who knows nothing about guns?
>> Give an ignorant, scared 90 lb. woman a guns she's not familiar with
>> and has no training with and the odds are in a real attack the gun
>> would do her no good and would likely end up in the attackers hands.
>> Only ignorant people think you can just hand a gun to someone who
>> knows nothing about them and they will be both safe and able to defend
>> themselves with it.
>>
>
> You keep raising these false examples. (One has to wonder about your
> intellectual honesty)
> So the answer to that is give the ignorant 90lb woman a gun and INCLUDE
> 30 minutes of basic training and about 60 minutes of range time.
> But even so, for that 90 lb woman, having a gun WITH NO TRAINING AT ALL,
> is better than being empty handed and defenseless, if she is facing that
> 200 lb rapist.
You miss the point every which way from Sunday. I am pro gun. If you
gave me the choice of giving a woman who never held a gun in her life a
gun to try to defend herself against a rapist or not having anything of
course I'd give her the gun. But that is next to the worst thing I could
do. In an emergency situation I would say it's better to have a gun and
not know how to use it than to be defenseless. But I wouldn't want to do
that unless I absolutely had to.
> I takes about 30 minutes to drill into most people
> 1) The 4 basic safety rules of guns
> 2) Basic operating techiniques for using a revolver
> I know because I have done it with adults and kids
>
> And that is all they need to
> a) load and use something as simple as a revolver
> b) hit a target at close range
> c) NOT be a danger to themselves or others near them.
>
> Your whole premise is based on false presumptions and even falser
> examples that are SPECIFICALLY created to justify yourself.
Your whole premise is based on not knowing anything about combat or
about human behavior. First off, when attacked most humans respond by
either freezing or running away. They do not respond by following your
30 minutes of instruction when under the threat of death. That is a
fact. I've had enough training with weapons to know that you must train
diligently if you expect to do in a combat situation what you do in
training. When maximum fear is involved small motor skills are gone. In
real gun fights the participants can't even remember to use the sights.
You seem to think as long as someone has a gun and knows the basics of
it's use then they are capable of defending themselves. That just isn't
the case. If you don't practice with your weapon all the time when the
time comes to use it in a combat situation you won't perform properly.
Just knowing how the weapon works isn't half of what's involved if you
need to use it in a life or death situation.
Hawke
Hawke
> Couple of flies in that particular jar of ointment, Hawke.
>
> First, I am eminently NOT qualified to decide which persons in a free
> society should have guns, for whatever reason - except for convicted
> criminals. And neither are you. You picked on senior citizens for an
> example, a group I am a member of. Yes, some are quite infirm, and some
> are quite shaky - but that does not mean they should be disbarred the
> RKBA. In certain cases, such as Alzheimers, I can understand it - but
> these poor souls can no longer make an intelligent effort to get a gun.
> But I'd rather have old arthritic grannie armed with a .22 than with
> just her bare hands when young Otis Droogie decides she might have a
> little money stashed away in her inner city poverty level apartment.
Number one, I didn't pick on senior citizens. I told you what I observed
at a gun club where they were training and testing people for concealed
carry licenses. Most of the people who couldn't handle their weapons
were old. So sue me. It was the old folks who couldn't cut the mustard.
If you saw them in action I guarantee you wouldn't want them around you
with a loaded weapon either. So I wasn't discriminating I was just
relating what I saw.
> Yes, I'd like to have old arthritic grannie out there practicing, but
> you know what? It's a FREE country and she shouldn't have to jump
> through your idea of hoops.
All freedoms are qualified in this country. You have free speech but
can't yell fire in a theater, right? Well, it's the same with guns. They
are a danger to others so you better know what you are doing if you are
going to carry one. You find something wrong with that? If so, is it
okay for the insane to have guns too? I mean why take their freedom away?
> As to that crack about Libertarians - blow it out your shorts, boy. You
> have yet to develop a brain, let alone compassion for your fellow man.
I know what compassion libertarians have for their fellows. They just
take the damage that comes from letting freedom reign as part of the
price. Let everyone in town carry like they did in the wild west. If
that means some innocent people get shot, well, that is just the price
of freedom. It's the same for everything else too. Let everyone do what
they please and let the innnocent people pay the price. That's not
compassion it's libertarianism. Gee, I sure I hope I don't get hit when
the drunk with the gun starts shooting the place up for fun. I wouldn't
want to restrict his freedom though.
Hawke
Hawke
> Ironically, it's always people like you who argue all sorts of fallacies
> as you have done here and in other posts
> You constantly argue with exceptions and KNOWINGLY CHOOSE to ignore the
> simple fact that your exceptions are exactly that
> EXCEPTIONS
> And exceptions DO NOT make the rule.
>
> And by the way, most of the exceptions you argue can be resolved if
> a) the person in question is open-minded to change their selection
> of agun
> b) the instructor involved takes the time to suggest alternatives
> to them
Here's the thing. I don't know what qualifications you have with guns. I
only know about me. I am a gun owner and shoot weekly and have done so
for many years. I shoot thousands of rounds from all kinds of different
handguns every year. I have done my own reloading for a long time. I
have taken NRA certification classes. I belong to a gun club with all
kinds of members with lots of levels of training. I'm one of the more
experienced shooters there. People ask me for help and advise all the
time because they recognize I know what I am doing. Then I have someone
like you telling me I don't know anything. See the problem?
I also hear you telling me things that I know are bullshit. I know from
what you have said you are not a qualified firearms instructor. I know
this because you can only give the most basic and rudimentary
instruction to beginners in a few hours time. You cannot count on people
like this to react well when their life is on the line. You think you
can teach the basics of point shooting and your student is capable of
self defense. All I can say is, in your dreams, Bro. You need to learn a
whole lot more before you can tell me anything about this topic. Clint
Smith you aren't.
Hawke
Lib Loo
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:e4kki5tuiuoao8pmd...@4ax.com...
>
> What state issues concealed carry permits based on successfully
> passing a three yard pistol course? BTW, "most" doesn't include those
> others that were at further distances. If one could count on
> shootings being a three yards, police departments wouldn't use 25 and
> 50 yard qualification courses.
You can pretty much get a Pennsylvania ($26), Maine ($60), Utah ($65.25),
New Hampshire ($100), Connecticut ($140), concealed carry permits without
ever firing a shot, if you follow the rules to the letter.
You don't even have to live in those States. The PA permit alone allows you
CC in about 20 States, the UT will get you about 30 States.
Lib Loo
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hgepbb$7bd$1...@aioe.org...
> Number one, I didn't pick on senior citizens. I told you what I observed
> at a gun club where they were training and testing people for concealed
> carry licenses. Most of the people who couldn't handle their weapons were
> old. So sue me. It was the old folks who couldn't cut the mustard. If you
> saw them in action I guarantee you wouldn't want them around you with a
> loaded weapon either. So I wasn't discriminating I was just relating what
> I saw.
> Hawke
You're full of it. I already posted proof that your scenario never happened.
More lib stories created out of thin air and feelings.
Doug Miller
>
>You can pretty much get a Pennsylvania ($26), Maine ($60), Utah ($65.25),
>New Hampshire ($100), Connecticut ($140), concealed carry permits without
>ever firing a shot, if you follow the rules to the letter.
Indiana, too. You do have to be a resident, though.
SaPeIsMa
>
>> Amazing how your thinking is flawed..
>> To summarize your way of thinking
>> "I'm surrounded by manly men who threaten each other all the time.
>> If you are not threatened all the time, you must hang out with wimps..
>
> Let me summarize your assumptions, baseless of course. I never said a word
> about me personally being surrounded by anyone, let alone manly men or any
> other kind. As for hanging around wimps or unmanly men it goes without
> saying if you do you are not going to hear the same things you would where
> macho guys hang out.
>
Is that why you cut the text that proves me right
The problem with that appoach, bub, is that your text can be REPLACED into
the post
Like this
"> ... But I do know that guys make all kinds of threats all the time
> and 99% of the time they never act on them.
> All you have to do is go to a bar and you'll hear people threaten
> each other all the time. But maybe you just hand around
> wimpy men who are completely non violent.
> Try hanging around some actual men and you will learn otherwise.
> All kinds of threats get tossed around all the time.
It's pretty clear that you - hang around in bars where wimpy men don't hand
around.
According to you these non-wimpy men, for which the opposite is manly men
threaten each other all the time.
That was a pretty clear summary of what you wrote
>
>> Also, since I hang around with manly men who threaten each other all the
>> time, it's OK for you to ignore any threats made against you.."
>
> Another assumption, I hang around with men who threaten each other.
> Incorrect. I don't but it's a fact that threats made by most men are not
> carried out. And I do ignore most threats I've heard from guys. Only when
> I judge it serious do I do anything about it. It's all about the judgment.
>
Well YOU are the one claiming knowledge of these non-wimpy men in bars who
threaten each other all the time
And YOU are the one suggesting to readers that they ALSO should hang around
with these non-wimpy men in bars who threaten each other all the time.
What are we supposed to conclude ?
a) That you actually do hang around bars with non-wimpy men who threaten
each other all the time ?
b) you were shovelling shit AKA LYING ?
>> For the record, in my youger days, in a different place and time, I hung
>> around with a bunch of men manly enough to wear regimental kilts, and who
>> by trade were professional soldiers, and whose regiment was light
>> infantry, which means schouts and snipers and pathfinders.
>> These knew at least a good dozen ways to kill you in their sleep and even
>> more when they were awake.
>> And yet sober or drunk, I never heard one of them ever utter a threat
>> against another, because they knew that most likely they would not sleep
>> as soundly at night if the other took them seriously.
>> So where does that leave the "manly men who make all kinds of threats all
>> the time" that you hang out with ?
>
> Flawed thinking on your part again. So you hung around with manly men, eh?
> None of that group threatened each other. Did I not say that men who
> actually kill are not likely to warn you first? It is the ones who talk
> big and make threats that don't usually carry them out, and you don't seem
> to know that. Also, your experience with a small group doesn't translate
> to men in general. But that is where you go for your proof. Sorry but the
> exception, soldiers, doesn't prove the rule.
>
Which takes us back to your allegedly non-wimpy men who threaten each other
all the time
Your own argument takes you back to the very point I'm making
Thank you for proving my point so clearly for me.
>
>
>> Frankly the fact that they need to "make all kinds of threats all the
>> time" suggests that they are more wimpy than manly and rely on bluster to
>> define who they are.
>
> This time you misread. Men make all kinds of threats all the time is
> plural. I didn't say individual men make threats all the time. A man may
> make a threat at one time or another. That is different from men in
> general making threats all the time. But it is true that lots of men make
> threats all the time. How do I know? Well, in California it's against the
> law to make what is called a terrorist threat. This means making threats
> of violence against someone. You know what? Thousands of men get arrested
> for this every year. Most of the time the threats are against their wives
> or girlfriends. I got this information first hand from law enforcement.
> The point is lots of men are making lots of threats. Just a fact. That's
> all.
>
So now you're claiming that your premise is all hearsay ?
BY ANY DEFINITION, first hand knowledge is EXPERIENCING it
Gossp such as you are allegedly getting is called SECOND HAND knowledge
In a court of law is HEARSAY, aka gossip.
You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head
>
>>>>> Second, a gun is a very dangerous weapon.
>>>>
>>>> [blink] [blink]
>>>>
>>>> No, really?
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, yeah, really. People who actually have guns and use them have a lot
>>> of respect for them. You know why? They are really dangerous. People get
>>> accidentally killed and badly hurt from them all the time. Anyone who
>>> doesn't understand the potential danger from a handgun is a moron.
>>>
>>
>> Funny though that in the us the accidental death rate of guns is less
>> than 1000 a year, while accidental car deaths are over 42,000 a year
>> And a great many of those are children and adults shooting themselves or
>> others in households where guns are often illegal for one reason or other
>> What does that tell you ?
>> What it tells me is that the great majority of gun owners are aware that
>> a gun just like any other tool can cause great harm if used negligently
>> Too bad we can't say the same about people who own cars. (Just look at
>> the numbers)
>
> Nice of you to only include people killed by guns accidentally, as if that
> is all the people who die from guns every year.
Well YOU are the one who raised the accidental issue in the first place
All I did was CLARIFY your (obvious) ignorance of the issue
> Your comparison to cars is silly. Cars are the main form of transportation
> in the country and millions of people drive millions of miles a year. Guns
> are rarely a necessity for most people. Even people who own guns use them
> infrequently. So what ever you were trying to prove with your numbers it
> didn't add up. I would say if 1,000 people a year die from something by
> accident that thing is pretty damn dangerous.
>
But according to you when 42,000 do so, that's much less dangerous or even
excusable ?
Talked about flawed thinking.
So, in effect, you are now trying to exclude one OBVIOUSLY dangerous item
that cause over 42x more death and injury from comparison on the claim that
according to you one item is socially usefull, but the other is not all the
while trying to confuse the issue by comparing 2 disparate numbers such as
criminal use vs accidental use ?
How illogical of you
A far more FAIR comparison of dangerousness of an item is how many accdents
occur with an item whose daily use is nearly identical
Cops carry guns every day the time, just like the average person drives a
car
And both groups have accidents with the item
Many non-cops also carry all the time, and their RATE of accidents is
apparently lower that that of cops, even though these law-abiding carriers
have less formal training at it than cops do.
Let's not forget also the people involved in the 2,500,000 or so, annual
DGUs, (Defensive Gun Uses), they clearly have guns near at hand, ready for
use, and still end up with 42x less accidents than car users who also have
their cars near at hand.
Also with 8,000,000,000 billion rounds fired off, guns are used about as
often as cars are driven,
You never really learned how to actually THINK about things, have you ?
You're just like most people winging along with your favorite prejudices
just framing what you believe, no matter what the facts are.
>
>>
>>>>> If you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't be able to just
>>>>> pick one up.
>>>>
>>>> It's pretty easy to use- the original point and click interface.
>>>
>>> Again, a completely ignorant statement. A car is easy to drive too.
>>> Little kids can do it. But there is more to it than simply operating the
>>> controls. If you are an experienced gun hand you know that. Clearly you
>>> are not.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense
>> Cars don't have that many more "operating controls than guns"
>> And children are exposed to cars far sooner than they are to guns, both
>> in real life and the media.
>> So they are pretty clued in about which "controls" do what for a car at a
>> young age.
>> My kids had already figured out the basic steps of driving a car before
>> age 5. (I know because I asked them).
>
> So then why can't kids get licenses? You seem to think driving is so
> simple kids can do it why restrict them? Is it operating the vehicle
> itself that is easy but being a safe and responsible driver that is not?
> If that is so it's a matter of maturity and experience not actual ability
> to operate the vehicle that matters.
Kids don't need licenses to operate farm machinery and do so from a very
yong age
I learned how to drive a tractor and operate it with other farm machinery
before age 10.
And I was a late starter because I was the "city cousin", and only on the
farm for short stints during summer and holidays
But learn I did, and operate them I did, LONG BEFORE I had a license to
drive a car
Oh and by the way, I alsoLEGALLY drove that farm machinery down the road, to
get to other fields, other farms, and even the grain elevators, before I was
16 and legally licensed to drive a car.
And apparently I was mature enough, and so were and are many other
farm-raised kids then and know, to not run amok and take on cars with the
cutting blades.
> It's the same with guns.
Since I have already demonstrated that your claims about driving licenses is
bogus, your claim of sameness does NOT hold
> It's not usually whether someone can operate the firearm it's a question
> of whether they should or not.
>
And the problem is that when the government sets itself up in that role, it
just happens that over time, less and less people seem to qualify, one way
or another as time passes, and pretty soon, no one really qualifies except
government minions.
And then, you have something called a police state
>
>
>
>> So to use your words on you
>> "If you were an experienced driver you would know that. Clearly you
>> are not."
>
> All you would have to do to know if I was an experienced driver is to ask
> about my record. How many years licensed, how many miles driven, how many
> accidents, etc. The idea you would have to find out by logic is not
> logical.
>
<Snicker>
and yet you choose to ignore that kind of data about gun-owners by arguing
some bogus claims about cars versus guns
Your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed by your
lack of intellectual honesty and logic
>
>>>>> I have been at a gun club where people were taking concealed weapon
>>>>> tests and a lot of them were a danger to themselves and to others.
>>>>> Some of them barely knew what end of a gun the bullet comes out of,
>>>>> let alone knowing how to clear a malfunction. Guns are too dangerous
>>>>> for a lot of people. If you haven't proved you are safe and at least
>>>>> semi proficient with a gun you shouldn't have one.
>>>>
>>>> You can learn to use a gun well enough to defend yourself in less than
>>>> 30 minutes.
>
> That's your opinion. I've heard NRA certified instructors who would
> disagree. I would disagree and I've had NRA training myself. I could say
> the same about fighting. You can learn the basics of how to punch, kick,
> and defend in a half an hour too. You wouldn't fare too well in a fight
> though.
>
Again with the inapropriate comparisons
Fighting is a lot more than just punching, kicking or whatever.
You need a few things to fight
1) the will to do so
2) the confidence to do so
3) the physical ability to do so
4) and down the list is the know-how.to do so.
Have you done any martial arts ?
I have, Judo, Karate, and Aikido during nearly 40 years
When young, I used to spar with a friend who was way ahead of me in skill
and rank.
And yet in free combat, I would wipe the mat with him regularly.
Even though he was way ahead of me 4) and even 3) he lacked the two things
that is essential for a real fight, items 1) and 2).
His technique was not only good, but perfect textbook.and in a controlled
environment such as tournaments, and class, he would do everything right.
But when the only rule was that you did not cause serious injury, but
anything else was OK, he would fail consistently against just about anyone
who was determined to win.
>
>>> You can pick up a revolver, point it, and pull the trigger and hit a man
>>> sized target in about two minutes. That doesn't make you safe to be
>>> around with a loaded weapon.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, but so what ?
>> You can pick up a set of cars keys and start driving in about he same
>> amount of time
>> Same argument applies to cars
>> So what is you point exactly ?
>
> The point is it's not about the simplicity of just being able to point a
> weapon and pull the trigger when you are being attacked. Just like there
> is a lot more to driving than just learning the basics. Take a look at how
> many car accidents teenagers have compared to older adults. It's far worse
> for the teenagers yet they know the operation as well as older folks and
> they have better senses. It's experience and judgment. It's the same with
> guns. Most mentally deficient persons can operate a revolver but would you
> trust them to have one? Your idea that you can just hand someone a weapon,
> show them how it works, and they are good to go in a fight is just plain
> dumb.
>
Again with the false premse
Most people who get a gun for self-defense have NO INTENTION of "going into
a fight":
Most of them would rather avoid a fight if they could
They are getting a gun for the situation, that hopefully will never happen
to them.
That a fight comes to them and they have nowhere to go.
As to mentally deficient people
If they can demonstrate that they understand the risks, are able to handle
the weapon safely, and also have a clear understanding of when it can or
cannot be used, for example a high function Down's Syndrome or Autist, I
have no problem with them having the best tool for their defense
Why would you ?
Maybe you're just prejudiced about a group of people
Apparently you just want any excuse to disallow people from defending
themselves
>
>>> Do you know that a lot of cops that are killed are shot with their own
>>> guns? That's a fact. How do you think that happens? Cops carry guns
>>> every day and it's not uncommon for them to have their guns taken away
>>> from them and used against them.
>>
>> Your whole premise is based on false presumptions and even falser
>> examples that are SPECIFICALLY created to justify yourself.
>>
>> Cops being shot with their own weapons happens less often than a cop
>> being run over
>> And the REASON that cops get shot with their own weapons has to do with
>> WHAT cops are REQUIRED to do(something that does NO apply to citizens
>> defending temselcve)
>> Cops are required to ARREST, DETAIN and CONFINE individuals who may
>> often prove recalcitrant
>> A person defending themselves are under NO SUCH CONSTRAINT
>> So right there your argument is a false one
>
>
> You think that because you missed the point. Point is cops are trained to
> use weapons and it's an everyday tool for them. But in reality even they
> lose their weapons in fights. If that can happen to a male police officer
> how easy would it be to take a gun away from the 90 lb. female who knows
> nothing about guns?
>
LOL
More false assumptions and ignorant claims
There are a few cops who take shooting seriously. Who take being armed
seriously
But there are many (far too many) cops out there who after a while, consider
their guns part of the uniform, and about being a cop, and fall back on
minimal practice so they can qualify, and no more.
I see far to many of these idiots show up at ranges and get embarrasssed
when teenagers can consistently outshoot them
You also need to look at the rate of misses in shooting incidents, where
unlike the movies, innocent bystanders are far more at risk from cops than
armed citizens who consistenly have a lower discharge and a higher effecitve
hit rate.
AS to your idiot claim of cops disarming 90# females, you seem to have
forgotten that the 90# females are NOT SUPPOSED TO FEAR THE COPS, you
fucking MORON.
So why do you insist on making that stupid argument ?
>
>>> Give an ignorant, scared 90 lb. woman a guns she's not familiar with and
>>> has no training with and the odds are in a real attack the gun would do
>>> her no good and would likely end up in the attackers hands. Only
>>> ignorant people think you can just hand a gun to someone who knows
>>> nothing about them and they will be both safe and able to defend
>>> themselves with it.
>>>
>>
>> You keep raising these false examples. (One has to wonder about your
>> intellectual honesty)
>> So the answer to that is give the ignorant 90lb woman a gun and INCLUDE
>> 30 minutes of basic training and about 60 minutes of range time.
>> But even so, for that 90 lb woman, having a gun WITH NO TRAINING AT ALL,
>> is better than being empty handed and defenseless, if she is facing that
>> 200 lb rapist.
>
> You miss the point every which way from Sunday. I am pro gun. If you gave
> me the choice of giving a woman who never held a gun in her life a gun to
> try to defend herself against a rapist or not having anything of course
> I'd give her the gun. But that is next to the worst thing I could do. In
> an emergency situation I would say it's better to have a gun and not know
> how to use it than to be defenseless. But I wouldn't want to do that
> unless I absolutely had to.
>
Again with the stupid presumptions
I can teach just about ANYONE in an hour most anything they need to know to
handle a gun safely, hit a target consistently a close range.
And I would much prefer that they use a 22lr revolver, if they are not up to
using a .38 Special
Because even 6 rounds of .22 can kill just about anyone if you put the
bullet(s) in the right place.
And typically, once that woman has decided that she really needs or wants
that gun for her own protection, I will do help her do the basics
and encourage her to practise regularly
And the women who have evolved to that point, usually pracitse more
religiously than most guys I know. And in a short time, they become far more
qualified than guys like you who are loaded with silly assumptions and argue
with false arguments.
Hawke
I've been a member of my club for about a decade. I know what I see. In
California you have to take the concealed carry test every two years. So
I have seen lots of people both taking the tests and practicing for it.
I know what I saw because I have seen it in person and numerous times.
You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and are making up
lies, which only shows how desperate you are. Can't handle the truth,
huh Bunky? Make up some more stories like your pal Gummer.
Hawke
Bama Brian
*WRONG!*
You see a fire, you'd better yell. And if there is no fire, then
there's a price to pay. Either way, you can yell anything you'd like in
a crowded theater.
Suppress free speech and political dissent also gets suppressed. As it
is today, with the so-called "Hate Speech" laws and the McCain/Feingold
law. Where will YOU draw the line? Will it be when you can no longer
say what you want?
> Well, it's the same with guns. They
> are a danger to others so you better know what you are doing if you are
> going to carry one. You find something wrong with that? If so, is it
> okay for the insane to have guns too? I mean why take their freedom away?
You the one who decides what is and is not sanity? Clinically speaking,
some of our best politicians are insane, what with Psychopaths making up
some two percent of our overall population. But I digress.
>> As to that crack about Libertarians - blow it out your shorts, boy.
>> You have yet to develop a brain, let alone compassion for your fellow
>> man.
>
> I know what compassion libertarians have for their fellows. They just
> take the damage that comes from letting freedom reign as part of the
> price. Let everyone in town carry like they did in the wild west. If
> that means some innocent people get shot, well, that is just the price
> of freedom. It's the same for everything else too. Let everyone do what
> they please and let the innnocent people pay the price. That's not
> compassion it's libertarianism. Gee, I sure I hope I don't get hit when
> the drunk with the gun starts shooting the place up for fun. I wouldn't
> want to restrict his freedom though.
Propping up Straw Man after Straw Man and attempting to hide behind them
does your case no good.
FYI, Libertarians do believe in some laws and controls on society;
without such, we'd have pure Anarchy - and that is NOT Libertarian
philosophy. It is, however, what liberals accuse libertarians of
wanting. You seem to be no exception to this rule.
To respond to your fear points, you appear to be in favor of limiting
firearms ownership. Would you like to be the one who writes those
'safety at any cost' regulations? Someday, one way or the other, they
will also apply to you...
Arthritic old Hawke is sitting in his rocking chair and watching fedgov
approved drivel on his 3DTV when Otis Droogie kicks in the door and,
finding no money, vents his spleen on the helpless old senior. I wish I
could say that such scenarios are only nightmares, but they aren't.
They have become commonplace in 21st Century America and are likely to
get worse.
Yet the cops have no duty whatsoever to protect you, or any other
citizen at risk. That has been made clear over and over in some 38
court decisions, all the way up the US Supreme Court.
So, old boy, old boy, whacha gonna do when they come for you?
Bama Brian
Are you saying anyone who doesn't meet your mental, physical, and level
of training shouldn't have a gun?
How wonderful it must be, to be a god.
Hawke
> know, people carrying firearms that they can't shoot are considered
> good things by some. Just not me. If you are going to carry it, you
> need to know how to handle it safely and knowing what your effective
> range with it is (to me) a bare minimum.
>
> You have already convinced me to write to my state legislators
> regarding reciprocity. Thanks for letting me know that some states
> don't require demonstrating basic skills prior to issue.
You know what's funny. Most people that know me and my views on gun
control think I'm very favorable to the right of people to have and to
carry guns. But on this newsgroup it's like I'm an anti gunner. It just
shows you how odd you seem when there are a bunch of libertarians
around. Those guys think you basically don't need any rules and that you
can trust anyone to decide for themselves what to do. Their idea of
freedom is actually anarchy. They'd be giving the car keys to 8 year
olds, machine guns to anyone who wants one, and not requiring anyone,
including doctors, to have a license to practice. Talk about far out
ideas. It also shows you how far their views are from normal is that
libertarians virtually never get elected to any office. Freedom is a
good thing but you still need laws in a society. If you let libertarians
have their way it would be chaos. They can't understand that though.
Hawke
Hawke
> Are you saying anyone who doesn't meet your mental, physical, and level
> of training shouldn't have a gun?
>
> How wonderful it must be, to be a god.
>
All I'm saying is that there needs to be sensible rules and regulations
regarding firearms just like with any dangerous object. I have seen
people trying to get concealed carry licenses that I don't think are
capable of safely carrying a loaded weapon. Guess what, a lot of them
didn't pass the test either. I suppose you have never seen what I have.
If you were the person in charge of deciding who got to carry a weapon
and who didn't you would let everybody have one. I just wonder if it
would bother you if some of the people you thought were okay to have a
gun killed or paralyzed some innocent people and if that might change
your mind about letting everyone have a gun. It's real easy to say
everyone should have the right to a gun if you aren't responsible for
the damage they do with it. It's a bit different if you are accountable
for your decision to give a gun to the wrong person.
Hawke
RD (The Sandman)
news:hggqb2$su7$1...@aioe.org:
> Deucalion wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:59:14 GMT, spam...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <hgf0fe$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Lib Loo"
>>> <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote:
>>>> You can pretty much get a Pennsylvania ($26), Maine ($60), Utah
>>>> ($65.25), New Hampshire ($100), Connecticut ($140), concealed carry
>>>> permits without ever firing a shot, if you follow the rules to the
>>>> letter.
>>> Indiana, too. You do have to be a resident, though.
>>
>> Keep it up and I may become convinced that CCW's are not good. I
>> know, people carrying firearms that they can't shoot are considered
>> good things by some. Just not me. If you are going to carry it, you
>> need to know how to handle it safely and knowing what your effective
>> range with it is (to me) a bare minimum.
>>
>> You have already convinced me to write to my state legislators
>> regarding reciprocity. Thanks for letting me know that some states
>> don't require demonstrating basic skills prior to issue.
>
>
> You know what's funny. Most people that know me and my views on gun
> control think I'm very favorable to the right of people to have and to
> carry guns. But on this newsgroup it's like I'm an anti gunner. It
> just shows you how odd you seem when there are a bunch of libertarians
> around.
Do I detect a bit of bias.....just like you claim that they have about you?
> Those guys think you basically don't need any rules and that
> you can trust anyone to decide for themselves what to do.
Some do, most do not.
> Their idea
> of freedom is actually anarchy. They'd be giving the car keys to 8
> year olds, machine guns to anyone who wants one, and not requiring
> anyone, including doctors, to have a license to practice. Talk about
> far out ideas.
Which I have heard very few people say and most of those are not
libertarians.
> It also shows you how far their views are from normal
> is that libertarians virtually never get elected to any office.
One major reason is that they have a small power base and elections are
pretty much set up to hear only the two major parties. What I would like
to see is that anyone who is on the ballots in enough states to
theoretically win, they should participate in the debates and not have it
limited only to the big two.
> Freedom is a good thing but you still need laws in a society. If you
> let libertarians have their way it would be chaos. They can't
> understand that though.
You could start by not posting this kind of crap. Go to
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/qt/libert_platform.htm
http://www.libertarianparty.com/faq
And see if you come away with the same ideas about the party as you claimed
above.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?