Gun nuts don't care about their children!
Brad Stevenson
>
> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
> a chance that their children could be caught in the line of fire.
>
> Even if their children don't mishandle guns some other less stringent
> parents child will get a hold of a gun and blow their little Billy
> away.
>
> Just say no to guns anywhere and you'll feel a greater sense of
> safety......those of us outside America love the freedom and sense
> of peace we feel living in a gun free society. Come join us.....
http://www.planeteria.net/home/cccpgv/kids&guns.html
Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
crashes, diseases or drugs.
One typical story:
The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p. B1
Boy, 10, Accused of Shooting Best Friend to Death
by David Kocieniewsi
A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy arguing with his best friend outside a
church in Williamsburg yesterday used a gun he had taken from his
grandmother's bedroom to fatally shoot the other boy, also 10, the
police said... The friends lived in the same six-story apartment
building...
Neighbors said (the grandmother) had recently bought the weapon
for her commute early in the morning to her job at a home for the
mentally disabled... Carlos Varga, superintendent of the building
where the boys lived, said the woman was devastated to learn that
her grandson had used the weapon.
"She had told me she bought the gun for protection because she
goes to work early," Mr. Varga said. "She said she forgot it today."
...The boys were close friends who liked to play video games,
roller-skate and ride bicycles together. They lived one floor
apart and attended the same school...
This page was last updated on July 20, 1996.
Copyright 1996 Contra Costa Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
Max Tindell
> Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
>
> FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
> crashes, diseases or drugs.
>
> One typical story:
> The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p. B1
>
> Boy, 10, Accused of Shooting Best Friend to Death
>
> by David Kocieniewsi
>
> A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy arguing with his best friend outside a
> church in Williamsburg yesterday used a gun he had taken from his
> grandmother's bedroom to fatally shoot the other boy, also 10,
Excellent example of how more kids in Kalifornia are killed by handguns
than by cars, disease or drugs. Brooklyn is a suburb of Los Angeles is
it not?
Panhead
Yes. The *very* east side of it.
However, this also explains why the vast majority should be
armed.
We need the defensive measures against all those drug, cult, and
gang punks that buy and steal weapons illegally.
Then, we need to ban those evil 'assault' Grandmothers.
Like this one!
http://www.monmouth.com/~panhead/granny.jpg
This gun was kept under her pillow.
no one of consequence
] Yes. The *very* east side of it.
] However, this also explains why the vast majority should be
]armed.
] We need the defensive measures against all those drug, cult, and
]gang punks that buy and steal weapons illegally.
] Then, we need to ban those evil 'assault' Grandmothers.
] Like this one!
]http://www.monmouth.com/~panhead/granny.jpg
]
] This gun was kept under her pillow.
Must be a big pillow.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
MakeMyDay99999
crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
you please back up your information with facts.
MakeMyDay99999
Brad Stevenson wrote in message <3748D408...@zyan.com>...
>dbmiller wrote:
>>
>> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
>> a chance that their children could be caught in the line of fire.
>>
>> Even if their children don't mishandle guns some other less stringent
>> parents child will get a hold of a gun and blow their little Billy
>> away.
>>
>> Just say no to guns anywhere and you'll feel a greater sense of
>> safety......those of us outside America love the freedom and sense
>> of peace we feel living in a gun free society. Come join us.....
>
>http://www.planeteria.net/home/cccpgv/kids&guns.html
>
>Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
>
>FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>crashes, diseases or drugs.
>
>One typical story:
>The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p. B1
>
>Boy, 10, Accused of Shooting Best Friend to Death
>
>by David Kocieniewsi
>
>A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy arguing with his best friend outside a
>church in Williamsburg yesterday used a gun he had taken from his
James C. Monroe
question. Unfortunately.
Max Tindell wrote:
>
> Brad Stevenson wrote:
>
> > Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
> >
> > FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
> > crashes, diseases or drugs.
> >
> > One typical story:
> > The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p. B1
> >
> > Boy, 10, Accused of Shooting Best Friend to Death
> >
> > by David Kocieniewsi
> >
> > A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy arguing with his best friend outside a
> > church in Williamsburg yesterday used a gun he had taken from his
> > grandmother's bedroom to fatally shoot the other boy, also 10,
>
Allen James
<spee...@xspam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> <makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
> >crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
> >you please back up your information with facts.
> >
> >MakeMyDay99999
> >
>
>
> How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
> than enough?
Speedy- are you in favor of banning cars, swimming pools, and cleaning
products, given the numbers of children killed and injured by said
items every year?
Max Tindell
>
> How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
> than enough?
Ah, the old "...if it saves the life of only one child..." ploy. You
must be a speech writer for the President. ROTFLO
Max
Sam A. Kersh
>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>you please back up your information with facts.
>Brad Stevenson wrote in message <3748D408...@zyan.com>...
>>dbmiller wrote:
>>FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs.
MMD, that would be assuming that Brad had some facts to back his
assertion; he doesn't. All he has is some HCI or VPC propaganda that he
didn't bother to research before posting it. The REAL facts are(1) that
children were killed at a rate 3.6 times higher than with ALL types of
firearms. Specifically, in 1996, there were 311 children killed in car
accidents versus 86 total firearms deaths. So much for the "moral
highground" of the anti-Constitutionalists aka anti-gun nuts.
1. http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/anonx/injury.shtml
This is CDC's online state mortality database.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., Life Member
JPFO
sleen...@applink.net
On 24 May 1999 17:38:46 GMT, wol...@schultz-2.io.com (no one of
consequence) wrote:
"How fortunate for governments that the
people they administer don't think."
-Adolf Hitler
William H. Greene
children, which is sort of ironic, since these are the ones that have
taken over in L.A.(CA) and where it is illegal for law abiding citizens
to carry a weapon(which I believe includes pepper gas).
Lat'r
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
sleen...@applink.net
<BStev...@zyan.com> wrote:
>dbmiller wrote:
>>
>> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
>> a chance that their children could be caught in the line of fire.
>>
>> Even if their children don't mishandle guns some other less stringent
>> parents child will get a hold of a gun and blow their little Billy
>> away.
>>
>> Just say no to guns anywhere and you'll feel a greater sense of
>> safety......those of us outside America love the freedom and sense
>> of peace we feel living in a gun free society. Come join us.....
>
WEll, to the slave who posted the above crap ....
KNEEL DOWN AND LICK THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU !
Harold Leahy
>must be a speech writer for the President. ROTFLO
Gary Kleck on the "if it saves one life" argument:
"There are two problems with this argument. First, it ignores the costs of
gun control, in particular the possiblity that gun control could cost lives
by denying effective defensive weaponry to at least a few people who need
and could successfully use guns in self-defense. Almost any control that
could save a life could also cost at least one life."
"Second, most major social problems have multiple possible solutions, each
costing something, and each having some potential for reducing the problem.
However, since all resources, including time, attention, and energy, are
limited, more resources devoted to some strategies means less available for
others. Consequently, the adherents of one particular strategy are obligated
to assess at least roughly the potential benefits that their strategy would
produce rather than merely arguing that it does not matter whether a
proposed policy would save one life or one thousand lives." "Most
selectively invoke the "one life" argument only when one of their numerical
claims regarding the harms of guns is challenged as being inflated."
"The "one life" argument is also attractive to propagandists because it
involves what scientists would label a "nonfalsifiable proposition," i.e., a
statement that could not be shown to be false not matter how false it
actually was. To argue that a particular gun control policy is effective and
worthwhile because it might save one life is impossible to refute because
doing so would require proving a negative - no matter how worthless or even
counterproductive the policy actually was, no one could possibly prove that
the policy would never save even one human life." p. 17-18
Gary Kleck. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. NY: Aldine de
Gruyer, 1997.
MakeMyDay99999
Huh? Are you stupid or something? A single instance quoted does support
the statement quoted as fact that California has more gun deaths than any
other methods (i.e. drugs, auto accidents, etc.).
It is also interesting that the statement applies to Brooklyn, which last
time I looked is not a city in California.
MakeMyDay99999
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374b1c85....@news.slip.net>...
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>>you please back up your information with facts.
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>>
>
>
>How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
>than enough?
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
Che'Gu Maru
to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with me
before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
unfortunate young women.
That is how much I care for my children.
Panhead
>
> I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
>
> Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
> she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
> enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
> defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
> unfortunate young women.
>
> That is how much I care for my children.
Congrats!
I hope your children live long and healthy EDUCATED lives.
There are forces out there that wish to keep us docile and
ignorant.
These "forces" have day jobs and are working in Washington DC.
A well loved, respected, and educated child has never committed
a crime. NEVER!
MakeMyDay99999
Ok -- enough on that thread. You are stupid.
MakeMyDay99999
MakeMyDay99999 wrote in message <7ieqdf$s57$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
MakeMyDay99999
Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with the
rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with this guy?
MakeMyDay99999
Jeffrey Quick wrote in message ...
>In article <375001b2...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
>> <chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>> >I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching
her how
>> >to shoot and safely handle a handgun. <snip>
>
>> Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>
>Let's hope! You remembered Annie Oakley. Will anyone remember YOUR spawn?
>
>--
>Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be
>changed regularly, and for the same reason.
> --Oak...@webtv.net
>.....................................
>Jeffrey Quick
Sam A. Kersh
> I think they count the hoodlums/gang bangers from the age 16 -19 as
>children, which is sort of ironic, since these are the ones that have
>taken over in L.A.(CA) and where it is illegal for law abiding citizens
>to carry a weapon(which I believe includes pepper gas).
>
It depends on which "fact" HCI/VPC is pushing today what age they use.
In order to get their phony 15 "children a day are killed by firearms"
stat, they use ages 0-22. I use the medical/legal definition,
pre-pubic, or 14 for boys and 11 for girls... but in my figures, I
standardize on 14 for both boys and girls.
It amazes me (NOT) that it's okay to vote or die for your country, but
for anti-gun stats, those between the ages of 18 and 21 are still
"children."
MakeMyDay99999
Come now Speedbyrd, if it wasn't for children how could you enjoy all that
child porn you collect?
MakeMyDay99999
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374e231e...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 23:29:46 -0500, Allen James
><shra...@LICEenteract.com> wrote:
>
>
>Actually, I'd be more in favor of banning kids, but since some people
>feel the need to bring them into the world, then they must take the
>responsiblity for them and that includes not encouraging them to get too
>curious about firearms. Your argument is lame and I feel stupid even
>replying to it.
>
>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
Rick Bowen
<badb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I think they count the hoodlums/gang bangers from the age 16 -19
24, IIRC.
as
>children, which is sort of ironic, since these are the ones that have
>taken over in L.A.(CA) and where it is illegal for law abiding citizens
>to carry a weapon(which I believe includes pepper gas).
>
>Lat'r
>
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member #073009
What? You expect the anti-gun
hopolophobe's to play fair?
The line has been drawn in the sand.
No more compromise.No more "giving"
in increments.
Rick Bowen
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>>you please back up your information with facts.
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>>
>
>
>How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
>than enough?
>
Same could be said for car crashes and swimming pools.
gall...@unt.edu
> >Speedy- are you in favor of banning cars, swimming pools, and cleaning
> >products, given the numbers of children killed and injured by said
> >items every year?
>
> feel the need to bring them into the world, then they must take the
> responsiblity for them and that includes not encouraging them to get too
> curious about firearms.
Hmmm. Against kids! Gee, should we ban those too?
> Your argument is lame
None are so blind, as those who WILL not see!
>and I feel stupid
Hey! Admitting that you have a problem is the first step! Congratulations!
Maybe one day, you too can see the logic behind not banning things. Things
that most of time, are NOT ever misused!
Randy
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise
disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial
distinctions, exclusions and incapacitation's are removed." (Thomas Jefferson)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government" (Thomas Jefferson)
--
"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise
disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial
distinctions, exclusions and incapacitation's are removed." (Thomas Jefferson)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government" (Thomas Jefferson)
The-Trainers
On Tue, 25 May 1999, SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 15:52:08 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Che'Gu Maru wrote:
> >>
> >> I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
> >> to shoot and safely handle a handgun. (edit)
> >>
> >> Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
> >> she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
> >> enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
> >> defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
> >> unfortunate young women.
> >>
> >> That is how much I care for my children.
> >
> > Congrats!
> > I hope your children live long and healthy EDUCATED lives.
> > There are forces out there that wish to keep us docile and
> >ignorant.
> > These "forces" have day jobs and are working in Washington DC.
> >
> > A well loved, respected, and educated child has never committed
> >a crime. NEVER!
>
>
> That's an uneducated statement as, first of all, you don't know all
> children and more than once has weathy, respected and loved children
> committed crimes. Let's see. what was that Kennedy kid's name
> again????
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
TWIT!
You just PROVED his point!
MT
Harold Leahy
>marines wounded by the enemy in all of World War II.
And what is not commonly used in rape? A firearm.
"One in every five rapes (20%) ... involve a weapon. When some type of
weapon is used, it is a handgun in slightly more than 1 in 3 rapes (6.6% of
all rapes)." p. 4
U.S. Department of Justice Bureau Of Justice Statistics Selected Findings
Violent Crime. April 1994, NCJ-147486.
"As with murders, the results indicate that the number of rapes in states
without nondiscretionary laws would have declined by 4,200, aggravated
assaults by 60,000, and robberies by 12,000" page 54.
"Although it not unusual for rape victims to be robbed, the decline in rape
most likely reflects the would-be rapist's fear of being shot." p. 134
John Lott, More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.
If it prevents 4,200 rapes, 60,000 assaults and 12,000 robberies aren't
'shall issue' laws worth it? Even if it prevents just 1 rape - what if it
was your mother, wife or daughter?
Max Tindell
> That's an uneducated statement as, first of all, you don't know all
> children and more than once has weathy, respected and loved children
> committed crimes. Let's see. what was that Kennedy kid's name
> again????
Oh, you mean Teddy.
Rick Bowen
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 15:52:08 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Che'Gu Maru wrote:
>>>
>>> I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
>>> to shoot and safely handle a handgun. (edit)
>>>
>>> Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
>>> she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
>>> enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>> defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
>>> unfortunate young women.
>>>
>>> That is how much I care for my children.
>>
>> Congrats!
>> I hope your children live long and healthy EDUCATED lives.
>> There are forces out there that wish to keep us docile and
>>ignorant.
>> These "forces" have day jobs and are working in Washington DC.
>>
>> A well loved, respected, and educated child has never committed
>>a crime. NEVER!
>
>
>That's an uneducated statement as, first of all, you don't know all
>children and more than once has weathy, respected and loved children
>committed crimes. Let's see. what was that Kennedy kid's name
>again????
Teddy?
>The Speedbyrd® :>
>
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member #073009
No children. Please do not pull
the "forthechildren" routine.
I really don't care about your rugrats.
Do not attempt to restrict my rights
to cover for your lack of parenting skills.
Yale Woodford
Ion Storm wrote:
>...
> A firearm gives you a chance against a home invader and the like....
Yes, in this regard, a home security firearm becomes a piece of
emergency equipment, just like a fire extinguisher. Neither item is an
absolute protection, but each item gives you an ability to deal with a
particular emergency, an ability you would not have without the item.
...
> Care to put your money where your mouth is? Please post your address here so
> we can verify that you have placed posters and decals on your home and windows
> etc.. stating that "This is a Gun-Free home!". What? You don't have those?
> ...
Cute. He could make the signs say that he doesn't have a fire
extinguisher, either.
...
>
> Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)
> Cause Number
> Motor-vehicle 3,059
> Drowning 1,060
> Fires, burns 833
> Mechanical suffocation 459
> Ingestion of food, object 213
> Firearms 181
>
> Source: Figures are for 1995. National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998
> Edition, at 10, 11, 18.
>
... So if my old calculator works right, reducing the children's death
rate in car accidents by just 6 percent would save more lives than would
eliminating all child deaths from firearms. Makes you wonder about
people's priorities, doesn't it?
Yale
Robert Frenchu
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
><chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
>>to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with me
>>before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
>>with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
>>CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
>>
>>Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
>>she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
>>enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
>>unfortunate young women.
>>
>>That is how much I care for my children.
>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
How many schools did Annie Oakley shoot up?
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
MakeMyDay99999
Well done for coming out of the closet. I knew you had it in you!
MakeMyDay99999
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37555aec....@news.slip.net>...
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Jeffrey,
>>
>>Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with the
>>rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with this
guy?
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>
>
>My boyfriends don't mind my company.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <3756371b...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not their
>business and it's not yours.
>
Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal lives. A
bit of a hypocrit, are we?
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37533644...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 21:14:29 GMT, no_...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) wrote:
>
>>In article <374e231e...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com
said:
>>
>>>Actually, I'd be more in favor of banning kids, but since some people
>>>feel the need to bring them into the world, then they must take the
>>>responsiblity for them and that includes not encouraging them to get too
>>>replying to it.
>>>
>>>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>>
My
>>oldest son a couple of years back when he was about ten expressed an
interest
>>in shooting so I enrolled him the local 4H club shooting sports program.
They
>>have an indoor range. He decided it wasn't for him and let it go. Now my
>>youngest is about the same age and he wants to go into the program, if he
>>takes to shooting like he has to fishing (and I am betting that he will)
then
>>I am sure that he will probably want to stick with it for awhile. In the
>>meantime anytime that they are curious I make sure that they can full
explore
>>and investigate whatever they are curious about as long as it is legal and
we
>>do it safely.
>>
>>I really am at a loss why according your statement that I would be
>>irresponsible? That is how I read it anyhow... I think you are sadly
mistaken
>>in your statement above. Care to reclarify it?
>>
>>Cheers!
>>Ion
>
>
>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
>is wrong.
>
Bullshit. More people are saved by guns than killed in suicides, accidents
and homicides combined. Various national surveys indicate that between
760,000 and 3.6 million people protect themselves with firearms every year.
Compare that to 35,000 firearms related deaths.
"Just one life" my ass.
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <375001b2...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
><chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
>>I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her
how
>>to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with
me
>>before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
>>with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
>>CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
>>
>>Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston.
Either
>>she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
>>enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as
those
>>unfortunate young women.
>>
>>That is how much I care for my children.
>>
>
>
>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>
>
Pathetic. A perfect description of people who refuse to take responsiblity
for their own safety. Here's another good description: COWARD.
J.A. James
> No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> is wrong.
You're absolutely right. If the child is killed because of easy access
to a gun, then the problem is a combination of lack of education and lack of
parental responsibility. It's exactly analogous to a child being killed by
drowning after being left alone in a bath.
Robert Gehrig
<snip>
>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
>is wrong.
>
>The Speedbyrd :>
>
Would you apply that logic to anything else that easy access to kills a
child.
MakeMyDay99999
I have tried and tried to explain to you that a gun can be locked up safely
but yet still be very accessible. Why don't you wake up and smell the
coffee!
MakeMyDay99999
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374d8263...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 16:10:50 -0400 (EDT), "Robert Gehrig"
><rge...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:59:24 GMT, SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
>>>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
>>>is wrong.
>>>
>>>The Speedbyrd :>
>>>
>>Would you apply that logic to anything else that easy access to kills a
>>child.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It won't work with most other dangerous things, unfortuntely. Say for
>instance, a gun needs to be accessible quickly to be effective. That's
>the big danger of it. It it must be locked away from little hands, then
>it's almost useless to the one who needs it in a hurry, in many cases.
>
>In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
>away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
>
>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
Trigg
Che'Gu Maru <chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:374AEE3D...@mail.hal-pc.org...
Trigg
Speedbyrd® <spee...@xspam.com> wrote in message
news:37555aec....@news.slip.net...
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> <makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey,
> >
> >Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with
the
> >rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with this
guy?
> >
> >MakeMyDay99999
>
>
> My boyfriends don't mind my company.
>
Hmmmmm, what does your company include, besides a sarcastic liberated
whatever you want to call yourself, woman perhaps, and I say that loosely.
.
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:30:12 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
> <blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <3756371b...@usenet.psinet.com>...
> >>On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:47 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> >><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Speedbyrd,
> >>>
> >>>Well done for coming out of the closet. I knew you had it in you!
> >>>
> >>>MakeMyDay99999
> >>>
> >>>SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37555aec....@news.slip.net>...
> >>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> >>>><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeffrey,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with
> >the
> >>>>>rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with this
> >>>guy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>MakeMyDay99999
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>My boyfriends don't mind my company.
> >>>>
> >>>> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Closet? I was never there. Since I was of legal age, I never gave a
> >>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not their
> >>business and it's not yours.
> >>
> >Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal lives. A
> >bit of a hypocrit, are we?
> >
>
> I care about the kids who have been taken at a young age because of
> asswipes like you and your 'Violence is the Answer' attitude.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
Where have we said "violence is the answer"? If you care so much about the
kids why don't you work on the things that cause kids to be so violent? Before
you try to take tools from people you need to determine if the tools are the
problem. Enforce the laws that exist now be for making more laws that will not
work.
By the way aren't you the one that said you didn't like children? If you
don't like them why are you so concerned with being "taken" at a young age? In
most cases kids are killing each other, how will a new law stop that when none
have yet? You do know that in most states it is not legal for a minor to have or
posses a hand gun don't you? In no state may a minor buy from a dealer (a hand
gun), that is federal law.
Blazing Sword is right, it is hypocritical to try to control another life in
any was if you are not willing to also be controlled in any way. A YOU A
HYPOCRITE?
Snake
Blazing Sword
Speedbyrd® wrote in message <374d47e0...@usenet.psinet.com>...>>Speedbyrd® wrote in message <3756371b...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:47 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
>>><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Speedbyrd,
>>>>
>>>>Well done for coming out of the closet. I knew you had it in you!
>>>>
>>>>MakeMyDay99999
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
>>>>><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeffrey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with
>>the
>>>>>>rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with
this
>>>>guy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MakeMyDay99999
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My boyfriends don't mind my company.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Closet? I was never there. Since I was of legal age, I never gave a
>>>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not their
>>>business and it's not yours.
>>>
>>Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal lives.
A
>>bit of a hypocrit, are we?
>>
>
>I care about the kids who have been taken at a young age because of
>asswipes like you and your 'Violence is the Answer' attitude.
>
the presence of a gun? What about the children who drown in swimming pools?
What about the children who die in car accidents?
What about the millions and millions of unarmed people killed by their
governments in the 21st century?
No, you only care about the GUN-related ones. I see right through you and
your statist bullshit just like the rest of your ilk.
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374e4810...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:28:50 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
><blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <375001b2...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
>>><chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching
her
>>how
>>>>to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic
with
>>me
>>>>before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious
instructions
>>>>with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for
a
>>>>CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
>>>>
>>>>Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston.
>>Either
>>>>she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I
care
>>>>enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>>>defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as
>>those
>>>>unfortunate young women.
>>>>
>>>>That is how much I care for my children.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Pathetic. A perfect description of people who refuse to take responsiblity
>>for their own safety. Here's another good description: COWARD.
>>
>
>
>
We're pussies because we take personal responsibilit for our safety and
don't have an elitist attitude that it's "someone else's job".
Frank Iam
news:374d8263...@usenet.psinet.com...
-snip-
>
> It won't work with most other dangerous things, unfortuntely. Say for
> instance, a gun needs to be accessible quickly to be effective. That's
> the big danger of it. It it must be locked away from little hands, then
> it's almost useless to the one who needs it in a hurry, in many cases.
It's a question of trade-offs. I have small children, therefore I keep a
gun on each floor of my home, each one of them unloaded (with speed loaders)
locked in a case.
I have calculated that it's the only safe choice for my situation. That
doesn't make them totally worthless, unless the person came into the house
gunning for me.
I personally consider the single biggest drawback to self protection not to
be a locked gun, but the fogginess of a mind being woken up at 2:00AM and
forced to conclude that something that should never happen is actually
happening.
>
> In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
> away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
Umm.... no. I'd have a hard time using a cordless screw gun and taking
myself seriously. The question of keeping them locked up is ... well, moot.
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
>
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374c478a...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>>>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
>>>is wrong.
>>>
>>and homicides combined. Various national surveys indicate that between
>>760,000 and 3.6 million people protect themselves with firearms every
year.
>>Compare that to 35,000 firearms related deaths.
>>
>>"Just one life" my ass.
>>
>
>
>you is a parrot of the others.
>
No, we probably have some of the same facts because we use real facts. We
use facts, you guys use your emotions.
>'Blazing Sword', my ass! Sorry, Junior, but the name hardly fits you.
>Pussy!
>
Bwahahahahaaa!!!!! A real toughguy, huh? Calling people pussies over the
internet. I bet that impresses your "boyfriends", Speedturd.
And if you must know, Blazing Sword is a reference to the '80s cartoon
Voltron.
.
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 16:10:50 -0400 (EDT), "Robert Gehrig"
> <rge...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:59:24 GMT, SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> >>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> >>is wrong.
> >>
> >>The Speedbyrd :>
> >>
> >Would you apply that logic to anything else that easy access to kills a
> >child.
> >
> >
> >
>
> It won't work with most other dangerous things, unfortuntely. Say for
> instance, a gun needs to be accessible quickly to be effective. That's
> the big danger of it. It it must be locked away from little hands, then
> it's almost useless to the one who needs it in a hurry, in many cases.
Fire kills a lot of small kids every year, and many of those fires are
started by the kids that die, by playing with matches and lighters. Fore a
while it was so bad that we now have "child proof" liters. The same was tried
with matches but was not as successful. Before that ot was medications of all
types, we now have "child proof" pill bottles. Kids are still dyeing in fires
started by kids, and dyeing from ingesting pills from "child proof" bottles.
Children are going to look at and play with most things that they see. The
only way to protect them to any degree is to educate them to the danger of
some things. If you hide the things from them, when they find them they will
not know what the object is capable of doing.
Children learn two ways for the most part. The best way is to have some
one they love and trust to teach them about many of the dangers of the world.
The second is through pain. Now what is best, for me as a parent to take my
child out and show them the power in a gun, and teach gun safety aproperate to
there age? Or not teach them and have them find a gun and not know what to
do, Pick it up because they don't know what to do, point it at a friend
because they don't know what to do, and pull the trigger killing there friend
because they did not know that all guns should be treated as loaded and not
pointed at any thing that you do not wish destroyed.
>
>
> In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
> away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
Are you going to lock up all your kitchen knives? Will you also lock up
the kitchen and bath water supply, as well as the ones outside? Will you then
remove all the plants that are or might be a poison to children? And the
trees that they will climb, what's to be done with them? And how about the
fence you have to keep your kids in your yard, what happens when they climb it
and fall off?
How many teens die from alcohol related driving accidents? Is it not the
leading cause of death for teens? It is not legal for any 16 year old to
drink and drive, but a lot of them do it killing there fellow teens every
year. Fewer kids under 18 are killed with a gun than are killed with a car
friend driving drunk.
>
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
Snake
gruhn
nothing will hurt and if anything bad happens, somebody must be to blame and
that said somebody is specificly somebody else.
We've got a pretty good hint already going on now. I'm betting the next set
will be worse.
gruhn
>> than enough?
No.
Sit back and pay attention to the argument. Look at the big picture.
Steve Fischer
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>>you please back up your information with facts.
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>>
>
>
>than enough?
>
No, better that hundreds of children die than give up a precious
adult right.
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Robert Frenchu
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:42:47 GMT, Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>Speedbyrd? wrote Tue, 25 May 1999 20:02:18 GMT:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
>>><chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
>>>>to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with me
>>>>before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
>>>>with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
>>>>CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
>>>>
>>>>Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
>>>>she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
>>>>enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>>>defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
>>>>unfortunate young women.
>>>>
>>>>That is how much I care for my children.
>>
>>>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>>
>>How many schools did Annie Oakley shoot up?
>I give up. How many?
Zero. So the bad thing about being Annie Oakley would be...... what?
That she makes more money than Speedbird?
antisdolie
Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com wrote:
> Speedbyrd? wrote Wed, 26 May 1999 18:00:23 GMT:
> >>>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
> >>How many schools did Annie Oakley shoot up?
> >I give up. How many?
> Zero. So the bad thing about being Annie Oakley would be...... what?
> That she makes more money than Speedbird?
Apparently, Speedbyrd fears armed females. One can only wonder why.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Brady wouldn't even dream this up:
"The Second Amendment right is the right to be armed AS PART OF THE
MILITIA. So the right belongs to the 'people' but it is the right to
be in the armed state miltia[sic]."
Dan Kimmel <Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Don Staples
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
> BTW, dogs are more of a waste than guns. I find cats much more a good
> 'alarm system' than dogs, not to mention they're not nearly the hassle to
> maintain and they're much more cuddly. But that's another subject for
> another time.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
--
Don Staples
UIN 4653335
Web Offerings: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For Forestry Conversation, Information, or Questions: The news groups bionet.agroforestry and
alt.forestry are available. http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/messages is a commercial site that is one
of the best sites on the web for forestry information.
cgla...@hotmail.com
dsta...@livingston.net wrote:
> Big damn cat to mew loud enough to wake a fella up.
You'd be surprised. The cat I've got could wake the dead, that little
guy can *yowl*. It's a continual source of amazement that lungs that
little can make that much noise.
Now if he'd only learn to do it on *cue*... :-)
--
Chuckg
> SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
>
> > BTW, dogs are more of a waste than guns. I find cats much more a
> > good 'alarm system' than dogs, not to mention they're not nearly the
> > hassle to maintain and they're much more cuddly. But that's another
> > subject for another time.
> >
> > The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
> --
> Don Staples
> UIN 4653335
KarenMarie
<no_...@nospam.net> writes
>In article <7iiaut$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Frank Iam" <iam_...@hotmail.com>
>said:
[snip]
>>
>>It's a question of trade-offs. I have small children, therefore I keep a
>>gun on each floor of my home, each one of them unloaded (with speed loaders)
>>locked in a case.
>
>I have small children too and I keep my defense guns in metal boxes of heavy
>gauge steel with programmable pushbutton Simplex locks, with a little practice
>one can easily open them in seconds even in the dark. A good security system
>and a dog or two will buy you enough time to where the tradeoff with having it
>locked for the sake of your children is negligable (sp?). And the kids are
>not going to be able to get into them. Five buttons= millions of
>possibilities... I like revolvers and I keep my loaded (doubleaction not
>cocked).
>
>There are a lot of ways of making it safe with a little intelligence and
>thought.
>
[snip]
>>>
>>> The Speedbyrd® :>
>
>just some thoughts...
>
>Cheers!
>Ion
I too have a child, but she is not that young. She is 14yrs. old. I keep
my loaded and ready to go guns where ever I put them down. She says that
they can never accidentally go off, cause she would never touch them,
unless her life depended on it. And she knows how to shoot. Not
competition level, but she can save herself if need be (God Forbid!!)
The only time I make a conscience effort to keep my weapons out of reach
is on rare occasions that my brother comes over with his 8yr. old son.
He has never been around guns, and does not have the instilled respect
for firearms that children raised around them *usually* have.
I don't bother with pepper sprays, or clubs, or the like. I figure that
if someone is going to try to harm me, or my daughter, I don't want to
fool with bodily combat. I am a peaceful, law abiding person, who
bothers no one, and feel that someone looking to harm us has made a
suicide decision the second they approach with the intent to harm me.
KarenMarie
\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
*****oOOo*(_)*oOOo********************************
Blaming guns for atrocious crimes is as ludicrous
as blaming pencils for mis-spelled words.
****************Oooo******************************
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
Ed Lingus
<BStev...@zyan.com> wrote:
>dbmiller wrote:
>>
>> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
>Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
>
>FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>crashes, diseases or drugs.
>
According to national statistics, from the National Safety Council,
the number of accidental deaths of children involved in firearms
accidents is significantly fewer than falls, drowning, choking on
ingested matter, fire, motor vehicle accidents, etc. If the posters
are to be believed, apparently CA does not adhere to national "norms"
in this area. Then again, the posters could be varying from the
truth.
Ed Lingus
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>>you please back up your information with facts.
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>>
>
>
>How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
>than enough?
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
Isn't it nice that you unquestioningly accept the allegation as truth
- even when the example given for "children killed in California" is a
news story about a child in Brooklyn, NY.
Perhaps you need to divert some of the skepticism you apply to one
side of the discussion to the other. Or admit that truth does not
enter the equation, for you, on this matter. If you favor elimination
of firearms to "save one child's life", then surely you campaign even
more vigorously for the elimination of the automobile. The carnage on
the highway, en toto, far exceeds the total of all accidental firearms
deaths and all homicides (whatever cause) combined. Or do you not
favor the elimination of the automobile to "save one child's life"?
Gordo
last words, "I knew it was loaded, not my fault he/she didn't, it's my gun." Put
that on the headstone.
Ok, you can leave it loaded while leaning on a fence when you stop for a crap when
you're stuck out hunting and no outhouse. Wish you lived here where it's against
the law for a gun to be loaded while unattended.
cgla...@hotmail.com
Gordo <haw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are an idiot. If the gun isn't in your hands it shouldn't be
> loaded.
You don't have time to load a gun if suddenly confronted by danger. And
you can't walk around with it in your *hand* all day.
> Famous last words, "I knew it was loaded, not my fault he/she didn't,
> it's my in." Put that on the headstone.
> Ok, you can leave it loaded while leaning on a fence when you stop for
> a crap when you're stuck out hunting and no outhouse.
Rule #1 of gun safety -- any gun you find and pick up, *assume* that the
fucking thing is loaded and act accordingly. Any gun that's been out of
your sight for five minutes, assume that someone loaded it while your
back was turned and act accordingly.
Until after *you* have persnoally checked that there's no magazine in it
and that the chamber is empty, the gun is always loaded. Anyone
genuinely trained in basic gun safety knows this. Therefore, it is not
necessary to unload the gun... if said gun is being left where only
people genuinely trained in basic gun safety will find it. This is why
it is important to make sure that all members of the household, even if
they don't want to shoot the gun themselves, have at least been checked
out on the *safety* course.
--
Chuckg
Robert Gehrig
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 16:10:50 -0400 (EDT), "Robert Gehrig"
><rge...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:59:24 GMT, Speedbyrd wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
>>>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
>>>is wrong.
>>>
>>>The Speedbyrd :>
>>>
>>Would you apply that logic to anything else that easy access to kills a
>>child.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It won't work with most other dangerous things, unfortuntely. Say for
>instance, a gun needs to be accessible quickly to be effective. That's
>the big danger of it. It it must be locked away from little hands, then
>it's almost useless to the one who needs it in a hurry, in many cases.
>
>In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
>away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
>
>The Speedbyrd :>
>
Then it is a matter of education both for the parents and the children, which
is not a function of government.
Sam A. Kersh
>On Sun, 23 May 1999 23:22:32 -0500, Brad Stevenson
><BStev...@zyan.com> wrote:
>
>>dbmiller wrote:
>>>
>>> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
>
>>Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
>>
>>FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs.
>>
>
> According to national statistics, from the National Safety Council,
>the number of accidental deaths of children involved in firearms
>accidents is significantly fewer than falls, drowning, choking on
>ingested matter, fire, motor vehicle accidents, etc. If the posters
>are to be believed, apparently CA does not adhere to national "norms"
>in this area. Then again, the posters could be varying from the
>truth.
No, California is no different than the rest of the country in this
matter. Specifically, in 1996, there were 311 children killed in car
accidents versus 86 total firearms deaths. So much for the "moral
high ground" of the anti-Constitutionalists aka anti-gun nuts who ignore
more common problems while attempting to ban firearms.
1. http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/anonx/injury.shtml
This is CDC's online state mortality database.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
L.E.A.A., Life Member
JPFO
Yale Woodford
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
...
>
> Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>
What do you have against Annie Oakley?
She was a devoted family woman, and was involved in lots of women's
education activities long before the woman's lib movement, even before
the suffragette movement. A train wreck injured her in 1901, ending her
Wild-West-Show career. But she remained active in women's matters until
her death in 1926. She wouldn't be a bad role model for young women
today, even those uninterested in firearms.
Could it be that you consider guns evil, and so presume that everybody
interested in them or skilled with them also must be evil? How would
that attitude square with people like Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington? If their regard for firearms makes them evil, according to
your perceptions, doesn't that lead down the road to repudiating your
U.S. citizenship? Just imagine: you could become a naturalized subject
of Britain or Germany or other such old country where you wouldn't have
to worry about the Second Amendment at all.
Yale
KarenMarie
>You are an idiot. If the gun isn't in your hands it shouldn't be loaded.
every waking moment, and never sleep. What good is an unloaded weapon?
And name calling shows your nature.
>
>Famous
>last words, "I knew it was loaded, not my fault he/she didn't, it's my gun."
>Put
>that on the headstone.
Anyone stupid enough to need something like that on their headstone is
no great loss.
>Ok, you can leave it loaded while leaning on a fence when you stop for a crap
>when
>you're stuck out hunting and no outhouse.
Nice. IS that a common practice there?
> Wish you lived here where it's
>against
>the law for a gun to be loaded while unattended.
I am glad that I don't live there, for an obvious reason, and I don't
even know what state it is.
Blazing Sword
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374d9e98...@usenet.psinet.com>...
>Bonnie Parker as better examples. I know more about them.
>
>I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
>to kill or maim.
Do you really think that? The overwhelming majority of guns are being used
completely wrong because only .0044% are used to kill someone every year.
The rest are used for target shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. In short,
for most people, guns are just another hobby. A hobby that can protect your
life and your freedom, if necessary.
It's too bad we have need of them. I'm against guns
>in the wrong hands and therein, the problem lies.
>
Everyone's against guns in the wrong hands, but crimminals wil always have
them. I also don't like the idea of defining "the wrong hands".
The-Trainers
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Speedbyrd® wrote:
> I never knew Annie Oakley. Perhaps I should have used Ma Barker or
> Bonnie Parker as better examples. I know more about them.
Figures, a paranoid anti-gun person like you would ONLY see criminals!
> I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
> to kill or maim.
Look idiot, I have fired over 16,000 rounds of ammo just this decade and
not one of those rounds ever did any harm to any living thing!
(ok, well, maybe if a flying insect got in the way.)
When I was a kid, I started putting food on our family table by age 8
and that continued untill High School when we finally could afford
to buy meat instead of hunting for it.
> It's too bad we have need of them.
Oh, well! Wake up and smell the REAL world for a change!
My family NEEDED guns and my mother had that PROVEN to her again
last year when she defended herself from a man who had broken into
her home with her handgun!
And no, she did not kill him, but he sure ran like hell was after him
when she pointed her gun at him!
> I'm against guns
> in the wrong hands and therein, the problem lies.
NO, be honest, all that you have advocated is aimed at preventing
innocent law-abiding citizens from owning guns and from being able to
protect themselves.
If the STUPID new laws here in California (SB-23 and SB-15) pass,
my mother would have to choose between being in violation of these
laws, or to give up her right to protect herself! These laws will
make MOST guns illegal in California!
What do you think my mother or I or my wife are going to do?
MT
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
>
>
>
The-Trainers
On Thu, 27 May 1999, Speedbyrd® wrote:
> <makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Speedbyrd,
> >
> >I have tried and tried to explain to you that a gun can be locked up safely
> >but yet still be very accessible. Why don't you wake up and smell the
> >coffee!
> >
> >MakeMyDay99999
> OK, I'm dense.
I think this has been long since established!
> I just don't understand how readily accessible it can be
> if it's locked up and you're not even in the same room when it's needed.
IF you mean trigger locks, those are not only stupid and useless,
but they are dangerous too! Not only do they ALL come with warnings
that if they are used on a loaded gun, just installing them could
cause the gun to fire! But also, they cannot be reliably un-locked
when you need the gun!
I saw a great one on TV, this guy wanting to pass mandatory trigger-lock
laws so that all guns would have to have them installed when not in use.
He has his own favorite trigger lock installed on a gun, it was supposed
to be the fastest un-lock and the easiest to use of any trigger lock now
available. He installed the lock, talked about how quick it was to
un-lock. But when he went to demonstrate, he FAILED to un-lock it
the first, second, third, and fourth times he tried! The fifth time
he was carefully watching his fingers in a well-lit room and finally
he got the lock off the gun!
Lemme give you a little family story of mine.
My grandfather was known for owning guns and semi-famous in my family
for being the only one who actually killed a criminal in self-defense.
Several of us have been saved by owning guns, but normally we don't
even have to fire them.
Any way, he always kept his valuable guns locked up very securely
and even the LOADED shotgun over the mantle had a trick safety
that would prevent anyone who did not know the trick from operating
the shotgun.
But the time he killed the thief in his living-room (who was walking out
with the family silver) who turned to shoot my grandfather and was
instead shot by my grandfather. Oh, and no, my grandfather was not
arrested or hassled at all about this by the cops, that was then,
sad to say that is no longer the case!
He never said where the gun was that he grabbed to use against this
criminal, but it was quick at hand and we never found them laying around
the house. He never would say where they were, but only that he had them
in each room and that is what saved his life.
It was only after he died and then some years later grandma died and we
went to remove their things to sell their house that my father
accidentally discovered where the loaded handguns had been hidden. We knew
my grandfather was fairly good with wood-working tools, but we were all
impressed by what he had done.
Suffice it to say that in each room there was one piece of furniture
that my grandfather had..... modified to be a handgun storage device
and in all those years, and with all the dozens of kids (including
neighborhood kids) he had in his home for most of his life, not one of
those guns was ever found by anyone!
Personally, I have done similar tricks for my mother in her home and
in mine.
Now for those less wood-working inclined, I have seen wonderful little
handgun safes where all you do is slap your ADULT size hand on the top
and twiddle your fingers for a fast second and the safe pops open to
hand you your loaded gun!
VERY kid-proof and VERY concealable!
They can be bolted to almost anything too!
> Humor me on this one.
So, are you humored enough now?
MT
> The Speedbyrd®
MakeMyDay99999
In essence, no you don't have to keep them locked. The only consideration
would be the value of them should they be stolen. Not to mention that they
could be used in a crime by the person stealing them.
In your case, I would have them accessible, then lock them up when you leave
the house. A good safe would do the trick. You may want to hide a gun in
the garage, should you come home and surprise someone already in the house.
MakeMyDay99999
Onethumb wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:30:29 GMT, no sp...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) speed
>shifted, exploding the tranny, which formed the following random patterns
>on the ground:
>
>>In article <374e8eeb...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com
said:
>>
>>>OK, I'm dense. I just don't understand how readily accessible it can be
>>>if it's locked up and you're not even in the same room when it's needed.
>>>
>>>Humor me on this one.
>>
>>put them in pistol packer boxes and practice the sequence to open them, if
you
>>are that paranoid or have that great of a need then put one in every room,
>>sure, they are not as readily accessible as laying on the countertop or
>>coffetble but it is a small tradeoff, an alarm system, dog, (killer cat?)
and
>>reinforced window/door hardware will neutralize the tradeoff.... If you
don't
>>have kids then leave them laying around all you want too without anything
>>else..
>>
>>they also have boxes that will open when it recognizes the palm of your
>>hand...
>>
>>Cheers!
>>Ion
>>>The Speedbyrd? :>
>>>
>I have a question.
>
>If I am a homeowner and am either single or married without kids at home
>(or adult kids still at home), then why would I have a need to lock up any
>guns in my home? After all isn't the house itself the lock that keeps my
>guns out of the hands of people I don't want to have access to them?
>
>...
>Copyright Mark Johnson 1999
>1998 Goldwing SE (Black): DoD #2021
>IB:SS1000 9/6/1997; BBG 9/18/1998, Fort Worth, Texas
>Bikes & Spikes: http://web2.airmail.net/onethumb/
>Cigar Smoke Web Ring: http://www.priosys.com/cswr/index.htm
>To reduce the spam, email to onethumb at airmail dot net
MakeMyDay99999
It is the women you have to fear in SF! ROFL
MakeMyDay99999
SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <374ed2ee....@usenet.psinet.com>...
>On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:21:58 GMT, no sp...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) wrote:
>
>>In article <375990a8...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com
said:
>>
>>>I fear no one, male or female.
>>
>>me too! but those shemales in SF scare the hell out of me!
>>LOL
>>
>>Cheers!
>>Ion
>>
>>>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>>>
>
>
>In SF, the men are pretty (?) and the women are strong. ;>
>
>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
J.A. James
Gordo <haw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:374D741E...@hotmail.com...
> You are an idiot. If the gun isn't in your hands it shouldn't be loaded.
> last words, "I knew it was loaded, not my fault he/she didn't, it's my
gun." Put
> that on the headstone.
crap when
against
> the law for a gun to be loaded while unattended.
As I sit here, my Beretta isn't in my hands. (A bit hard to type)
Yet it's completely loaded even to having a round chambered. In what way
does that present a danger to anyone? At night my home defense gun sits in a
bracket next to the bed, loaded and ready to go. All it takes is to unfasten
the latch and grab it. During the night, I'm usually asleep and not holding
the gun. How is that dangerous?
A firearm is a badly designed club if it's not loaded. If it's being
used for self defense, it's completely unreasonable to expect an attacker to
have the courtesy to wait while you load your defensive gun.
SNIP
Frank Iam
Master Lock settable combination locks. I too choose revolvers. I don't
know about the pepper spray and all that. If it got to a point where I
believed that my chances of being broken into were greater, I may employ
things like that.
Sure does sound like you have your place wired well. Perhaps a trap door in
the foyer would be a nice addition? : )
Ion Storm <no_...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:m3533.18674$pj7.1...@news2.giganews.com...
> In article <7iiaut$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Frank Iam"
<iam_...@hotmail.com> said:
>
-snip-
>
> I have small children too and I keep my defense guns in metal boxes of
heavy
> gauge steel with programmable pushbutton Simplex locks, with a little
practice
> one can easily open them in seconds even in the dark. A good security
system
> and a dog or two will buy you enough time to where the tradeoff with
having it
> locked for the sake of your children is negligable (sp?). And the kids
are
> not going to be able to get into them. Five buttons= millions of
> possibilities... I like revolvers and I keep my loaded (doubleaction not
> cocked).
>
> There are a lot of ways of making it safe with a little intelligence and
> thought.
>
> I also have the rest of my stuff in gun safes and they are bolted to the
> concrete floor and have an alarm sensor inside wired into the house system
> plus an independent one. I like playing with electrical wires and the
like
> so it was easy and fun for me to do.
>
> Anybody talented enough to get at my stuff wouldn't be targeting me in the
> first place...penny annie...
>
> >I have calculated that it's the only safe choice for my situation. That
> >doesn't make them totally worthless, unless the person came into the
house
> >gunning for me.
>
> exactly...
>
> >I personally consider the single biggest drawback to self protection not
to
> >be a locked gun, but the fogginess of a mind being woken up at 2:00AM and
> >forced to conclude that something that should never happen is actually
> >happening.
>
> think about the simplex lockboxes. you can hone the combo into basic
instinct
> with practice. you program the combo/sequence..
>
> Pepper Sprays painted to match the walls and stuck on door frames above
your
> bedroom doors and such using velcro is another good idea. It may or may
not
> save you from a home invasion but it sure is nice having some backups and
> things to use if you need them. This works good in your vehicles too btw,
> right above the door frames... paint them to match the headliners..
along
> with window tint and one can't readily see them. My girlfriend sprayed a
> hustler that touched her at a redlight last year.
>
> I had an extra alarm keypad put in that has Police Fire and Ambulance
direct
> call buttons put into my bedroom where I can easily reach it. I also
wired in
> my own secret panic buttons and phone dialers in a few locations.
>
> >>
> >> In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
> >> away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
> >
> >Umm.... no. I'd have a hard time using a cordless screw gun and taking
> >myself seriously. The question of keeping them locked up is ... well,
moot.
> >
> >>
Frank Iam
do hunt and enjoy the sport of them).
This must rank right up there with one of the most rational responses you
have made in this group.
SpeedbyrdŽ <Spee...@xspam.com> wrote in message
news:374d9e98...@usenet.psinet.com...
-snip-
>
> I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
> to kill or maim. It's too bad we have need of them. I'm against guns
> in the wrong hands and therein, the problem lies.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
James D. Nicholson
>
> Big damn cat to mew loud enough to wake a fella up.
If I had a handle like Speedbyrd®, I don't think I'd sleep too sound
anyway with a big ole cat around. Only eternal vigilance saved Tweety
Bird. <BFG>
> Speedbyrd® wrote:
>
> > BTW, dogs are more of a waste than guns. I find cats much more a good
> > 'alarm system' than dogs, not to mention they're not nearly the hassle to
> > maintain and they're much more cuddly. But that's another subject for
> > another time.
> >
> > The Speedbyrd® :>
>
> --
> Don Staples
> UIN 4653335
>
> Web Offerings: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
>
> For Forestry Conversation, Information, or Questions: The news groups bionet.agroforestry and
> alt.forestry are available. http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/messages is a commercial site that is one
> of the best sites on the web for forestry information.
--
Jim Nicholson - http://www.tsra.com/
Dante wrote in The Inferno, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for
those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
S. R. Sheffield
>
>I don't want to see your messages in my private email AND on this group.
>I'd rather not have them in my private mail, especially if they're going
>to be insulting. They will be eliminated quickly and and unread.
>
>The Speedbyrd® :>
>
Speedbyrd,
Just a suggestion, not a flame, trim out some of what you are
responding to. Save some bandwidth. Just a little net courtisy (s)
S. R. Sheffield
Robert Frenchu
>On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:47:33 GMT, Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com
>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
>>Speedbyrd? wrote Wed, 26 May 1999 18:00:23 GMT:
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 13:42:47 GMT, Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com
>>>(Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Speedbyrd? wrote Tue, 25 May 1999 20:02:18 GMT:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
>>>>><chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
>>>>>>to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with me
>>>>>>before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
>>>>>>with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
>>>>>>CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
>>>>>>she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
>>>>>>enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
>>>>>>defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
>>>>>>unfortunate young women.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is how much I care for my children.
>>>>
>>>>>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>>>>
>>>>How many schools did Annie Oakley shoot up?
>>
>>>I give up. How many?
>>
>>Zero. So the bad thing about being Annie Oakley would be...... what?
>>That she makes more money than Speedbird?
>Annie Oakley is long dead and you have no idea of my financial status and
>it's not an issue here, anyway. You're dismissed.
Just trying to figure out your irrational fear of Girls With Guns. If
you don't want to tell us in a public forum I quite understand.
Robert Frenchu
>I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
>to kill or maim.
I used my guns today and I didn't kill or maim anyone.
Did I use them incorrectly?
David W. Berry
"Sam A. Kersh" wrote:
>
> William H. Greene <badb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> > I think they count the hoodlums/gang bangers from the age 16 -19 as
> >children, which is sort of ironic, since these are the ones that have
> >taken over in L.A.(CA) and where it is illegal for law abiding citizens
> >to carry a weapon(which I believe includes pepper gas).
> >
>
> It depends on which "fact" HCI/VPC is pushing today what age they use.
> In order to get their phony 15 "children a day are killed by firearms"
> stat, they use ages 0-22. I use the medical/legal definition,
> pre-pubic, or 14 for boys and 11 for girls... but in my figures, I
> standardize on 14 for both boys and girls.
>
> It amazes me (NOT) that it's okay to vote or die for your country, but
> for anti-gun stats, those between the ages of 18 and 21 are still
> "children."
One has to wonder how many of our servicemen Billy boy has sent overseas
to get killed on various boondoggles will be included in "children
killed
by firearms"
Frank Iam
<no sp...@nospam.net (Ion Storm)> wrote in message
news:CdE33.28996$pj7.2...@news2.giganews.com...
-snip-
>
> There are a lot of ignored kids out there that are just fertile for
planting
> the seeds of responsible gun-ownership, hunting, fishing etc...
All too true. It's very sad. Good work for you though.
>
> We may all win the battle currently on our gun-rights but look at the
dropping
> statistical numbers of hunting and fishing licenses every year! More and
more
> kids that live in the burbs have NEVER been fishing...have never been
hunting,
> they know nothing about guns except for what the media protrays (ugghhh)
and
> they are not being properly instructed in history and our Consitution in
most
> of our schools...
It's tough to battle things that even though wrong are repeated over and
over again. Truth often has a hard time winning these days.
>
> The future doesn't look very promising UNLESS we all start planting some
> seeds..
No, it doesn't look very promising.
>
> Sorry for getting off on tangent a bit here but (LOL) I am doing so for
> anybody else that may be reading this.
It's a good tangent.
>
> Talk to a kid, they are full of fears... You wouldn't believe how bad this
Y2K
> thing has a lot of them anxious and fearful although they don't readily
admit
> it. Sorta like the fear some of us had when we were little of nuclear
> annilation (sp?).....
I am just a tad bit too young for that, but I was hold enough to develop a
fear of hippies. : ) But the threat of nuclear destruction doesn't seem
very remote anymore to me.
>
> Cheers!
> Ion
>
W. E. Woods
MakeMyDay99999 wrote:
>
> Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
> crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
> you please back up your information with facts.
He cannot because it is simply untrue.
>
> MakeMyDay99999
>
> Brad Stevenson wrote in message <3748D408...@zyan.com>...
> >dbmiller wrote:
> >>
> >> Why else would they promote guns in every home when there is always
> >> a chance that their children could be caught in the line of fire.
> >>
> >> Even if their children don't mishandle guns some other less stringent
> >> parents child will get a hold of a gun and blow their little Billy
> >> away.
> >>
> >> Just say no to guns anywhere and you'll feel a greater sense of
> >> safety......those of us outside America love the freedom and sense
> >> of peace we feel living in a gun free society. Come join us.....
> >
> >http://www.planeteria.net/home/cccpgv/kids&guns.html
> >
> >Kids and Guns: A Few Facts
> >
> >FACT: More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
> >crashes, diseases or drugs.
> >
> >One typical story:
> >The New York Times, July 19, 1996, p. B1
> >
> >Boy, 10, Accused of Shooting Best Friend to Death
> >
> >by David Kocieniewsi
> >
> >A 10-year-old Brooklyn boy arguing with his best friend outside a
> >church in Williamsburg yesterday used a gun he had taken from his
> >grandmother's bedroom to fatally shoot the other boy, also 10, the
> >police said... The friends lived in the same six-story apartment
> >building...
> >
> >Neighbors said (the grandmother) had recently bought the weapon
> >for her commute early in the morning to her job at a home for the
> >mentally disabled... Carlos Varga, superintendent of the building
> >where the boys lived, said the woman was devastated to learn that
> >her grandson had used the weapon.
> >
> >"She had told me she bought the gun for protection because she
> > goes to work early," Mr. Varga said. "She said she forgot it today."
> >
> >...The boys were close friends who liked to play video games,
> > roller-skate and ride bicycles together. They lived one floor
> > apart and attended the same school...
> >
> >This page was last updated on July 20, 1996.
> >Copyright 1996 Contra Costa Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence
> >
> >http://www.planeteria.net/home/cccpgv/
--
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
W. E. Woods
"William H. Greene" wrote:
>
> I think they count the hoodlums/gang bangers from the age 16 -19 as
> children,
Often as high as 24.
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 21:14:29 GMT, no_...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) wrote:
>
> >In article <374e231e...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com said:
> >
> >>Actually, I'd be more in favor of banning kids, but since some people
> >>feel the need to bring them into the world, then they must take the
> >>responsiblity for them and that includes not encouraging them to get too
> >>curious about firearms. Your argument is lame and I feel stupid even
> >>replying to it.
> >>
> >>The Speedbyrd® :>
> >
> >There is nothing wrong with being curious about firearms or anything else. My
> >oldest son a couple of years back when he was about ten expressed an interest
> >in shooting so I enrolled him the local 4H club shooting sports program. They
> >have an indoor range. He decided it wasn't for him and let it go. Now my
> >youngest is about the same age and he wants to go into the program, if he
> >takes to shooting like he has to fishing (and I am betting that he will) then
> >I am sure that he will probably want to stick with it for awhile. In the
> >meantime anytime that they are curious I make sure that they can full explore
> >and investigate whatever they are curious about as long as it is legal and we
> >do it safely.
> >
> >I really am at a loss why according your statement that I would be
> >irresponsible? That is how I read it anyhow... I think you are sadly mistaken
> >in your statement above. Care to reclarify it?
> >
> >Cheers!
> >Ion
>
> No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> is wrong.
Then you will agree that if even ONE child is killed because there was
no gun within easy access to defend that child with, then something is
wrong, correct?
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:12:16 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> <makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Speedbyrd,
> >
> >I have tried and tried to explain to you that a gun can be locked up safely
> >but yet still be very accessible. Why don't you wake up and smell the
> >coffee!
> >
> >MakeMyDay99999
> >
>
> OK, I'm dense. I just don't understand how readily accessible it can be
> if it's locked up and you're not even in the same room when it's needed.
>
> Humor me on this one.
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
Gee, Speedt, did you know that the accident rate and actual number of
accidents involving kids and guns have both been steadily *dropping*
even as the number of gun owners and guns has risen?
--
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:12:16 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> <makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Speedbyrd,
> >
> >I have tried and tried to explain to you that a gun can be locked up safely
> >but yet still be very accessible. Why don't you wake up and smell the
> >coffee!
> >
> >MakeMyDay99999
> >
>
> OK, I'm dense. I just don't understand how readily accessible it can be
> if it's locked up and you're not even in the same room when it's needed.
>
> Humor me on this one.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
Gee, Speedy, did you know that the accident rate and actual number of
W. E. Woods
Ion Storm wrote:
>
> In article <BB235665B1CC203F.977E89D0...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Pulg...@ia.net (Onethumb) said:
>
> >On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:30:29 GMT, no sp...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) speed
> >shifted, exploding the tranny, which formed the following random patterns
> >on the ground:
> >
> >>In article <374e8eeb...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com said:
> >>
> >>>OK, I'm dense. I just don't understand how readily accessible it can be
> >>>if it's locked up and you're not even in the same room when it's needed.
> >>>
> >>>Humor me on this one.
> >>
> >>put them in pistol packer boxes and practice the sequence to open them, if you
> >
> >>are that paranoid or have that great of a need then put one in every room,
> >>sure, they are not as readily accessible as laying on the countertop or
> >>coffetble but it is a small tradeoff, an alarm system, dog, (killer cat?) and
> >>reinforced window/door hardware will neutralize the tradeoff.... If you don't
> >
> >>have kids then leave them laying around all you want too without anything
> >>else..
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> :^)
>
> >>they also have boxes that will open when it recognizes the palm of your
> >>hand...
> >>
> >>Cheers!
> >>Ion
> >>>The Speedbyrd? :>
> >>>
> >I have a question.
> >
> >If I am a homeowner and am either single or married without kids at home
> >(or adult kids still at home), then why would I have a need to lock up any
> >guns in my home? After all isn't the house itself the lock that keeps my
> >guns out of the hands of people I don't want to have access to them?
>
> You wouldn't have a need Mark, to lock up any guns in your home, I
> wholeheartedly agree with you about the house being the lock... I wouldn't
> neccessarily disagree with folks with kids, it isn't my call, however I myself
> choose to keep my locked up because I have children.
I lock some and store some in other ways. I also teach my children about
guns and gun safety.
>
> >....
> >Copyright Mark Johnson 1999
W. E. Woods
Onethumb wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 15:20:27 -0700, The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> speed
> shifted, exploding the tranny, which formed the following random patterns
> on the ground:
> >Now for those less wood-working inclined, I have seen wonderful little
> >handgun safes where all you do is slap your ADULT size hand on the top
> >and twiddle your fingers for a fast second and the safe pops open to
> >hand you your loaded gun!
> >
> >VERY kid-proof and VERY concealable!
>
> And all of them were tested in Gun Test magazine. Most were found to be
> pretty easy to defeat. Some by doing nothing more than yanking in the lid,
> others by banging a corner of it on the ground. Only one withstood a
> determined effort. I don't remember which it was, butt it wasn't the one
> with indents for the fingers and it wasn't the one with the lighted
> buttons.
A small revolver will hide in some very concealed but accessable places
simply by hanging it from a bore brush stuck in the barrel.
>
> ...
> Copyright Mark Johnson 1999
> 1998 Goldwing SE (Black): DoD #2021
> IB:SS1000 9/6/1997; BBG 9/18/1998, Fort Worth, Texas
> Bikes & Spikes: http://web2.airmail.net/onethumb/
> Cigar Smoke Web Ring: http://www.priosys.com/cswr/index.htm
> To reduce the spam, email to onethumb at airmail dot net
--
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:34:25 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
> <blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37533644...@usenet.psinet.com>...
> >>On Tue, 25 May 1999 21:14:29 GMT, no_...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <374e231e...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com
> >said:
> >>>
> >>>>Actually, I'd be more in favor of banning kids, but since some people
> >>>>feel the need to bring them into the world, then they must take the
> >>>>responsiblity for them and that includes not encouraging them to get too
> >>>>curious about firearms. Your argument is lame and I feel stupid even
> >>>>replying to it.
> >>>>
> >>>>The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
> >Bullshit. More people are saved by guns than killed in suicides, accidents
> >and homicides combined. Various national surveys indicate that between
> >760,000 and 3.6 million people protect themselves with firearms every year.
> >Compare that to 35,000 firearms related deaths.
> >
> >"Just one life" my ass.
> >
>
> Do all of you pro-gunners go to the same School of Idiocy? Each one of
> you is a parrot of the others.
>
> 'Blazing Sword', my ass! Sorry, Junior, but the name hardly fits you.
> Pussy!
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
I notice that you are unable to refute the facts he stated, Speedy.
W. E. Woods
Gordo wrote:
>
> You are an idiot.
No she isn't.
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 09:46:29 -0400 (EDT), "Robert Gehrig"
> <rge...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 May 1999 23:25:00 GMT, SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 26 May 1999 16:10:50 -0400 (EDT), "Robert Gehrig"
> >><rge...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 26 May 1999 17:59:24 GMT, Speedbyrd wrote:
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> >>>>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> >>>>is wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>>The Speedbyrd :>
> >>>>
> >>>Would you apply that logic to anything else that easy access to kills a
> >>>child.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>It won't work with most other dangerous things, unfortuntely. Say for
> >>instance, a gun needs to be accessible quickly to be effective. That's
> >>the big danger of it. It it must be locked away from little hands, then
> >>it's almost useless to the one who needs it in a hurry, in many cases.
> >>
> >>In the case of bug spray, power tools, etc. Those things can be locked
> >>away as time is not an issue with them. Does that make sense?
> >>
> >>The Speedbyrd :>
> >>
> >
> >Then it is a matter of education both for the parents and the children, which
> >is not a function of government.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I would have to agree with that.
Looks like we may agree on something, Speedy. Education is *the* key,
not more lawsand stupid restrictions put in place by people who know
nothing about the subject. All these ridiculous laws remind me of the
time the state held hearings about introducing a seatbelt law for
motorcycles.
>
> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
--
W. E. Woods
"James C. Monroe" wrote:
>
> Logic or the facts do not seem to impact on either side of this
> question. Unfortunately.
How so, James? The pro-gun, pro-Rights side is quite capable of
logically defending their position, and quite often do so. The anti-gun,
anti-Rights side generally is limited to illogic, emotionalism, and
outright lies.
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:38:53 -0500, Che'Gu Maru
> <chgu...@mail.hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> >I care about my twelve-year old daughter enough so that I am teaching her how
> >to shoot and safely handle a handgun. She shot a .22 semi-automatic with me
> >before when she was younger, and now I am giving her serious instructions
> >with an air pistol at home. When she becomes old enough to qualify for a
> >CCW, I'll buy her her first pistol, too.
> >
> >Every few months another girl or young woman goes missing in Houston. Either
> >she is never heard of again, or else eventually her body is found. I care
> >enough about my own daughter that I will give her the ways and means of
> >defending herself, should she ever find herself in the same position as those
> >unfortunate young women.
> >
> >That is how much I care for my children.
> >
>
> Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
Well, I can see that you aren't going to last long here. You don't seem
to post much that isn't illogic, false, or emotionalism. Oh, I almost
forgot the sarcastic BS.
--
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:30:12 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
> <blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <3756371b...@usenet.psinet.com>...
> >>On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:47 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> >><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Speedbyrd,
> >>>
> >>>Well done for coming out of the closet. I knew you had it in you!
> >>>
> >>>MakeMyDay99999
> >>>
> >>>SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37555aec....@news.slip.net>...
> >>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> >>>><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jeffrey,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to do with
> >the
> >>>>>rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate with this
> >>>guy?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>MakeMyDay99999
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>My boyfriends don't mind my company.
> >>>>
> >>>> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Closet? I was never there. Since I was of legal age, I never gave a
> >>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not their
> >>business and it's not yours.
> >>
> >Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal lives. A
> >bit of a hypocrit, are we?
> >
>
> I care about the kids who have been taken at a young age because of
> asswipes like you and your 'Violence is the Answer' attitude.
Do you care about the children and adults whose lives have been saved by
people with guns? Evidently not. Like I said, this incarnation of your
phony "position" won't last long here.
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 13:52:50 GMT, antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <37523eaf...@news.redshift.com>,
> > Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Speedbyrd? wrote Wed, 26 May 1999 18:00:23 GMT:
> >
> >> >>>Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
> >
> >> >>How many schools did Annie Oakley shoot up?
> >
> >> >I give up. How many?
> >
> >> Zero. So the bad thing about being Annie Oakley would be...... what?
> >> That she makes more money than Speedbird?
> >
> >Apparently, Speedbyrd fears armed females. One can only wonder why.
> >
> >Jim
>
> I fear no one, male or female.
You evidently are severely phobic about the truth. You avoid it so
thoroughly.
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
> And all of you are PUSSIES without your gun.
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
Another clone spouts knowledge free slime. Very Lichtensteinish of you.
--
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 13:05:05 -0500, Yale Woodford
> <ya...@lakewood.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >> Pathetic. Another Annie Oakley in the making.
> >>
> >
> >What do you have against Annie Oakley?
> >
> >She was a devoted family woman, and was involved in lots of women's
> >education activities long before the woman's lib movement, even before
> >the suffragette movement. A train wreck injured her in 1901, ending her
> >Wild-West-Show career. But she remained active in women's matters until
> >her death in 1926. She wouldn't be a bad role model for young women
> >today, even those uninterested in firearms.
> >
> >Could it be that you consider guns evil, and so presume that everybody
> >interested in them or skilled with them also must be evil? How would
> >that attitude square with people like Thomas Jefferson and George
> >Washington? If their regard for firearms makes them evil, according to
> >your perceptions, doesn't that lead down the road to repudiating your
> >U.S. citizenship? Just imagine: you could become a naturalized subject
> >of Britain or Germany or other such old country where you wouldn't have
> >to worry about the Second Amendment at all.
> >
> > Yale
>
> I never knew Annie Oakley. Perhaps I should have used Ma Barker or
> Bonnie Parker as better examples. I know more about them.
>
> I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
> to kill or maim.
Of course, you won't let it bother you that this is not true, will you,
Speedy?
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 14:51:25 -0700, The-Trainers <trai...@best.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Thu, 27 May 1999, SpeedbyrdŽ wrote:
> >
> >> I never knew Annie Oakley. Perhaps I should have used Ma Barker or
> >> Bonnie Parker as better examples. I know more about them.
> >
> >Figures, a paranoid anti-gun person like you would ONLY see criminals!
> >
> >> I don't consider guns 'evil' per se, it's sad that their only purpose is
> >> to kill or maim.
> >
> >Look idiot, I have fired over 16,000 rounds of ammo just this decade and
> >not one of those rounds ever did any harm to any living thing!
> >
> >(ok, well, maybe if a flying insect got in the way.)
> >
> >When I was a kid, I started putting food on our family table by age 8
> >and that continued untill High School when we finally could afford
> >to buy meat instead of hunting for it.
> >
> >> It's too bad we have need of them.
> >
> >Oh, well! Wake up and smell the REAL world for a change!
> >
> >My family NEEDED guns and my mother had that PROVEN to her again
> >last year when she defended herself from a man who had broken into
> >her home with her handgun!
> >
> >And no, she did not kill him, but he sure ran like hell was after him
> >when she pointed her gun at him!
> >
> >> I'm against guns
> >> in the wrong hands and therein, the problem lies.
> >
> >NO, be honest, all that you have advocated is aimed at preventing
> >innocent law-abiding citizens from owning guns and from being able to
> >protect themselves.
> >
> >If the STUPID new laws here in California (SB-23 and SB-15) pass,
> >my mother would have to choose between being in violation of these
> >laws, or to give up her right to protect herself! These laws will
> >make MOST guns illegal in California!
> >
> >What do you think my mother or I or my wife are going to do?
> >
> >MT
> >
> >\
>
> I don't want to see your messages in my private email AND on this group.
> I'd rather not have them in my private mail, especially if they're going
> to be insulting. They will be eliminated quickly and and unread.
Yep, they revived the old program.
W. E. Woods
Frank Iam wrote:
>
> Very true. Can't really disagree with anything here (save that some people
> do hunt and enjoy the sport of them).
People defend themselves with guns, use them for sport, collect them,
etc. It is also a lie that "their only purpose is to kill or maim." You
consider this rational?
>
> This must rank right up there with one of the most rational responses you
> have made in this group.
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:18:45 GMT, no sp...@nospam.net (Ion Storm) wrote:
>
> >In article <374d8e69...@usenet.psinet.com>, Speed...@yahoo.com said:
> >
> >>Yes, cats are good people. You just have to understand they do things in
> >>THEIR own time and are very aloof, compared to dogs. But REAL easy
> >>upkeep!
> >
> >I've got a real tiny mini-dachshund that is just as you described above, LOL
> >she does things when she is good and ready and the upkeep is minimal, she
> >drinks out of a water bottle like a rabbit....
> >
> >She doesn't freak out around gun shots either, she gets all excited and
> >serious looking....
> >
> >>The Speedbyrd® :>
> >
> >Cheers!
> >Ion
>
> How many gunshots has she been subjected to???
"Subjected to?"
fift...@my-deja.com
"W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> "SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:30:12 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
> > <blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <3756371b...@usenet.psinet.com>...
> > >>On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:47 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> > >><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Speedbyrd,
> > >>>
> > >>>Well done for coming out of the closet. I knew you had it in
you!
> > >>>
> > >>>MakeMyDay99999
> > >>>
> > >>>SpeedbyrdŽ wrote in message <37555aec....@news.slip.net>...
> > >>>>On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:47:01 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
> > >>>><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Jeffrey,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Speedbyrd has already said he doesn't want to have anything to
do with
> > >the
> > >>>>>rearing of children. But then again, who would want to mate
with this
> > >>>guy?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>MakeMyDay99999
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>My boyfriends don't mind my company.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
> > >>>
> > >>>
of boyfriends??? Hmmmmmmmmm!!!
Ron H. Criminals and liberals prefer that victims be unarmed!!!!
> > >>
> > >>Closet? I was never there. Since I was of legal age, I never
gave a
> > >>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not
their
> > >>business and it's not yours.
> > >>
> > >Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal
lives. A
> > >bit of a hypocrit, are we?
> > >
> >
> > I care about the kids who have been taken at a young age because of
> > asswipes like you and your 'Violence is the Answer' attitude.
>
> Do you care about the children and adults whose lives have been saved
by
> people with guns? Evidently not. Like I said, this incarnation of your
> phony "position" won't last long here.
>
> "Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
> what ships are built for."
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Rick Bowen
wrote:
>
>
WTF is Speedy's problem? Dachshunds were bred as a badger hunting dog.
Not every living thing is afraid of guns like speedy is.
As far as the thread title goes, don't have any, don't care about 'em.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member #073009
No children. Please do not pull
the "forthechildren" routine.
I really don't care about your rugrats.
Do not attempt to restrict my rights
to cover for your lack of parenting skills.
Carole Long
>
> >> How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
> >> than enough?
>
> No.
>
> Sit back and pay attention to the argument. Look at the big picture.
I have the right to won legal weapons. I have the right under the
conceal carry Law to be armed. We all have the right to teach our
children about the danger of driving wreckless the dangers of getting
drunk and yesthe dangers of guns all of these can kill. Ban Automobiles
That's silly you are responiable to teach your children right from wrong
ban things are not the answer. Taking time to be a part of our children
and grandchildrens lives. Teaching them right from wrong, Loving them
bringing them up in the faith of your choice. I am a grandmother a
comceal lience holder and a faithful Catholic.
Your Sister in Christ
CaroleAnn
John Garand
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 09:09:38 -0700, "MakeMyDay99999"
><makemyd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd, you state "More kids are killed by handguns in California than by car
>>crashes, diseases or drugs. " but you quote one singular instance. Could
>>you please back up your information with facts.
>>
>>MakeMyDay99999
>>
>
>
>How many 'singular' instances are needed?? Isn't one child taken more
>than enough?
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
If you believe the accidental death of a single child suffices to
demand the abolition of the inanimate object which was the proximate
cause of death, why are you not demanding the banning of cars,
swimming pools, etc.? It's just a good "soundbyte" to you, as
relevant to you as are the deaths of those real children who die in
firearm related accidents. In your view both are good things because
they allow you to advance you political agenda. You dance on the
graves of dead children - and tell us how you care about their deaths.
You do care about their deaths, but only insofar as they help your
political cause. You care not one whit for the children. You are a
ghoulish fraud.
John Garand
wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 1999 14:30:12 -0400, "Blazing Sword"
><blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
snip
>>>
>>>Closet? I was never there. Since I was of legal age, I never gave a
>>>shit what people thought about my very personal life. It's not their
>>>business and it's not yours.
>>>
>>Ah, but you are anti-gun, so you care about OTHER people's personal lives. A
>>bit of a hypocrit, are we?
>>
>
>I care about the kids who have been taken at a young age because of
>asswipes like you and your 'Violence is the Answer' attitude.
>
>The Speedbyrd® :>
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Must be to have provoked that response,
or do you tend toward vulgarisms in all conversation?
If you really cared about the deaths of children, you would be
campaigning for the regulation of swimming pools, trampolines, hot
dogs and grapes (substantial choking hazard for children), etc. As
these items cause the accidental death of more children than firearms,
and you are not raising those issues, you are a fraud and a hypocrite.
And a troll to boot.
W. E. Woods
"Speedbyrd®" wrote:
>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>There is nothing wrong with being curious about firearms or anything else.
> >> >My
> >> >>>oldest son a couple of years back when he was about ten expressed an
> >> >interest
> >> >>>in shooting so I enrolled him the local 4H club shooting sports program.
> >> >They
> >> >>>have an indoor range. He decided it wasn't for him and let it go. Now my
> >> >>>youngest is about the same age and he wants to go into the program, if he
> >> >>>takes to shooting like he has to fishing (and I am betting that he will)
> >> >then
> >> >>>I am sure that he will probably want to stick with it for awhile. In the
> >> >>>meantime anytime that they are curious I make sure that they can full
> >> >explore
> >> >>>and investigate whatever they are curious about as long as it is legal and
> >> >we
> >> >>>do it safely.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>I really am at a loss why according your statement that I would be
> >> >>>irresponsible? That is how I read it anyhow... I think you are sadly
> >> >mistaken
> >> >>>in your statement above. Care to reclarify it?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Cheers!
> >> >>>Ion
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> >> >>ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> >> >>is wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >Bullshit. More people are saved by guns than killed in suicides, accidents
> >> >and homicides combined. Various national surveys indicate that between
> >> >760,000 and 3.6 million people protect themselves with firearms every year.
> >> >Compare that to 35,000 firearms related deaths.
> >> >
> >> >"Just one life" my ass.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do all of you pro-gunners go to the same School of Idiocy? Each one of
> >> you is a parrot of the others.
> >>
> >> 'Blazing Sword', my ass! Sorry, Junior, but the name hardly fits you.
> >> Pussy!
> >>
> >> The Speedbyrd® :>
> >
> >I notice that you are unable to refute the facts he stated, Speedy.
>
> I notice that you haven't paid attention to some of the most recent
> posts. You're pretty far behind in this discussion and you have some
> catching up to do.
Unlike you, I have other things to do. However, I notice you still
cannot refute the facts he stated. Amazing how much time you clones have
to spend here and how little you manage to say of any worth.
W. E. Woods
"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:21:09 -0700, "W. E. Woods"
> <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"SpeedbyrdŽ" wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >There is nothing wrong with being curious about firearms or anything else. My
> >> >oldest son a couple of years back when he was about ten expressed an interest
> >> >in shooting so I enrolled him the local 4H club shooting sports program. They
> >> >have an indoor range. He decided it wasn't for him and let it go. Now my
> >> >youngest is about the same age and he wants to go into the program, if he
> >> >takes to shooting like he has to fishing (and I am betting that he will) then
> >> >I am sure that he will probably want to stick with it for awhile. In the
> >> >meantime anytime that they are curious I make sure that they can full explore
> >> >and investigate whatever they are curious about as long as it is legal and we
> >> >do it safely.
> >> >
> >> >I really am at a loss why according your statement that I would be
> >> >irresponsible? That is how I read it anyhow... I think you are sadly mistaken
> >> >in your statement above. Care to reclarify it?
> >> >
> >> >Cheers!
> >> >Ion
> >>
> >> No I don't. I think you get the message. My reason was given. If even
> >> ONE child is killed because of a gun within easy access, then something
> >> is wrong.
> >
> >Then you will agree that if even ONE child is killed because there was
> >no gun within easy access to defend that child with, then something is
> >wrong, correct?
> >
> >
>
> We've gone down this old road before and I'm growing weary of
> repeating myself on it. I'll let someone else who paid attention and
> understood what I meant, field this one.
IOW, you refuse to acknowledge the truth.