Guns
The Other Harry
has been on my mind also. I have various thoughts.
#1 is that you need to know that you will almost certainly be
breaking the law. Most campgrounds prohibit firearms. As far
as I know, all state and federal campgrounds prohibit them.
#2 is that people who own firearms for the purposes of
self-protection had better know how and when to use them. It
isn't a sport for amateurs.
I am not saying don't do it. What I am saying is that you'd
better give it some thought first. An amateur is more likely
to get in trouble than to provide protection.
A dog would be better.
--
Harry <---- who recently changed his email address
Z.Z.
> The subject of guns came up on the recent "dogs" thread. This
> has been on my mind also. I have various thoughts.
>
> #1 is that you need to know that you will almost certainly be
> breaking the law. Most campgrounds prohibit firearms. As far
> as I know, all state and federal campgrounds prohibit them.
>
> #2 is that people who own firearms for the purposes of
> self-protection had better know how and when to use them. It
> isn't a sport for amateurs.
> ...
While I agree with #2, I think you're wrong on #1. Firearms are OK in
national parks as long as they're disassembled (in which case they're
virtually unusable). I don't think they're prohibited in national
forests. And frankly, I doubt that they're prohibited in *ALL* state
campgrounds. Your point ia well taken, but the best advice would probably
be to check on the regulations where you're going.
Karl Lindholm
The Other Harry wrote:
> The subject of guns came up on the recent "dogs" thread. This
> has been on my mind also. I have various thoughts.
> #1 is that you need to know that you will almost certainly be
> breaking the law. Most campgrounds prohibit firearms. As far
> as I know, all state and federal campgrounds prohibit them.
Why do you say that someone will almost *certainly* be breaking the law?
Granted, there are some 20,000 federal, state, and local laws to
consider, but it is disingenuous to say it that way. It would be more
correct to say that one *might* be breaking a law. I do not believe
that any poster here has advocated breaking existing laws, but one
should be aware of them.
Speaking only for myself, and not trying to make my views accepted or
even acceptable by anyone, I will risk a citation, or confiscation of my
weapon rather than risk grievious injury to me and mine. Firearms are
used over 2,000,000 (that's NOT a type, two million) times a year to
deter nefarious activities by nasty folks, and fortunately, at least
thus far, self defense is a valid defense in this country, unlike some
others.
Given the option, I would gladly pay a fine, and/or lose a gun rather
than spend time in the hospital as a patient, or visitor. Remember, bad
guys don't follow the laws anyway, and are specifically, by Supreme
Court decision, exempt from some gun laws anyway, they WILL have them.
Also, had you said federal (National) parks (with certain rare exceptions)
(http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/e-mail/weapons.htm)
and SOME state compgrounds I would have to agree with you. However
to say that MOST federal and state campgrounds prohibit them is simply
poppycock.
> #2 is that people who own firearms for the purposes of
> self-protection had better know how and when to use them. It
> isn't a sport for amateurs.
I would say, and I am sure others here would agree that ANYONE who owns,
or wishes to own, a firearm for ANY reason had better know how to use
them, and take any training they feel is needed, is required, or
recommended by someone whose opinion they trust who has a long,
comfortable familiarity with weapons.
> I am not saying don't do it. What I am saying is that you'd
> better give it some thought first. An amateur is more likely
> to get in trouble than to provide protection.
Gee, I would like to think that people give thought to MOST things
before they do them! :)
I have been around guns a long long time, and you know something? I
don't know a single professional gunman, everyone of them has been an
"amateur". :)
> A dog would be better.
Depends entirely on your point of view.
JPinNE
> While I agree with #2, I think you're wrong on #1. Firearms are OK in
> national parks as long as they're disassembled (in which case they're
> virtually unusable). I don't think they're prohibited in national
> forests. And frankly, I doubt that they're prohibited in *ALL* state
> campgrounds. Your point ia well taken, but the best advice would probably
> be to check on the regulations where you're going.
True. I regularly hunt in state recreation areas in Nebraska.
The Other Harry
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:]
> While I agree with #2, I think you're wrong on #1. Firearms are OK in
> national parks as long as they're disassembled (in which case they're
> virtually unusable). I don't think they're prohibited in national
> forests. And frankly, I doubt that they're prohibited in *ALL* state
> campgrounds. Your point ia well taken, but the best advice would probably
> be to check on the regulations where you're going.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Mainly, what I was meaning to say is something to the effect
that some discretion and knowledge are appropriate for those
who decide to carry a firearm while camping.
If I did -- speaking hypothetically, of course -- it isn't
something I would talk about. Nor would I admit to it, even
if directly asked. Nor would it be disassembled.
I still think my dog is a better first line of defense.
Nobody in their right mind would try to break into my house
when he is here. And, I'd really rather not have to shoot
anybody. That would make a big mess. Have to talk to the
cops, etc.
Aaron Stegmaier
Aaron
Gears
carry guns? I remember seeing something about it on tv a few years back
while tv surfing.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on how that affected crime
rate (up or down or the same).
If guns are banned in a country, does this make it harder for the criminal
to obtain guns? ie there would no longer be guns at gun shops (so there
would be less guns in the country as a whole) so the only way to get a gun
would be on the black market (which is how criminals get it) but would this
not raise the price of illegal guns therefore reducing the number of crimes
commited by guns?
Guns vs dogs for protection would also be an interesting debate:
ie guns cannot wake up when they hear a noise outside
ie the gun is totally in your control (unless your really freaked out and
scared by something...or you have an itchy trigger finger lol)
ie dogs can get shot by the bad guys gun
ie dogs crap guns don't
both need a license
both can be killers in the wrong hands
Wow this is interesting.....any other thoughts?
I have tried to be unbiased to both sides
Gears
The Other Harry
<mshep...@rogers.com> wrote:]
> Wow this is interesting.....any other thoughts?
My thought is that your thoughts are all well-founded.
Dogs have their place. My dog is very protective of any space
which he decides is "his".
One time I left him in my daughter's car while she, my cousin,
and I went for lunch. By the time we came back, the car was
*his* property. No one -- I mean NO ONE -- would have tried
to break into that car. They'd pick some other car.
Another time I took him on a driving trip with a lady friend.
We soon figured out that the thing to do was for her to get in
last. He'd be fine that way. But if she tried to get in when
he was in the car and I was not, he would snap at her.
We're talking a dog that is normally very gentle and friendly
here. But he is better than any burglar alarm system I have
ever seen. A buglgar could shoot him or poison him, but it
would be so much easier to just go somewhere else.
I also think guns have their place. I have been trying to
talk my daughter (age 23) into taking an NRA training program.
I don't want to turn her into a female version of Clint
Eastwood, but I would like her to at least learn how to clear
a firearm. A bit more than that, but at least the basics.
What I do not approve of is the many people who buy firearms
for "self-protection" but who never learn how to use them. By
the time the gun comes out, it's the bottom of the ninth and
you're two runs down. There are two outs and two on base.
If you've never touched a baseball bat, you lose.
Karl Lindholm
point, I would be happy to continue this through private e-mails.
I have to leave for work in a couple of hours, have to shovel a foot of
snow before I do, and then will be gone for several days and out of
touch, and therefore I don't have time to search and give you URLs for
all the questions below.
Besides, if you are anti-gun, it is unlikely that you would accept as
fact anything that the NRA, the 2nd amendment foundation or the like
would publish, just as if you are pro-gun, you might likely have a
cynical attitude on any information garnered from Americans for Gun
Safety, or the Brady campaign, etal. web sites.
Is very interesting reading, and has links to both pro and anti gun web
sites. Highly recommended! Many of your questions are answered there.
Gears wrote:
> Is it true that in the UK guns are prohibited? Do thier police officers
> carry guns? I remember seeing something about it on tv a few years back
> while tv surfing.
I did a search recently, but did not save the web sites. For all
practical purposes guns of almost all types are banned in England, or
have such severe restrictions as to make them useless as tools for self
defense. You are now 5 times as likely to be mugged walking the streets
of London than you are New York City.
People can and have been fined and/or jailed for trying to defend
themselves (with or without guns) against muggers, rapists, and thiefs
in England, and have sometimes gotten stiffer sentences than thier
assailants.
I also remember the news story of when Bobbies began carrying firearms.
They decided there was too much risk to the police given how well
armed the criminal population was, and thier increasing willingness to
use them.
> It would be interesting to see some statistics on how that affected crime
> rate (up or down or the same).
Do a search at your local book store, or on Amazon.com for authors John
Lott, Gary Kleck.
Professor Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and
Gun Control Laws" has been demonized by the anti-gun groups and praised
by the pro-gun groups, but the anti-gunners have not been able to find
fault with Lott's methodology in his statisical analysis.
The findings show that the more honest, law abiding people that have
guns available, the lower the crime rate. Criminals will have them
regardless.
> If guns are banned in a country, does this make it harder for the criminal
> to obtain guns? ie there would no longer be guns at gun shops (so there
> would be less guns in the country as a whole) so the only way to get a gun
> would be on the black market (which is how criminals get it) but would this
> not raise the price of illegal guns therefore reducing the number of crimes
> commited by guns?
Did prohibition make booze harder to get? Have all the drug laws and
efforts to stop drug smuggling stopped drug use in this, or any other
country?
If there is a demand for something, legal or not, it will be filled.
> Guns vs dogs for protection would also be an interesting debate:
IMHO, having both is best.
> ie guns cannot wake up when they hear a noise outside
>
> ie the gun is totally in your control (unless your really freaked out and
> scared by something...or you have an itchy trigger finger lol)
>
> ie dogs can get shot by the bad guys gun
>
> ie dogs crap guns don't
>
> both need a license
Only in some juristictions, and after all, since felons are prohibited
from even *touching* a gun, they are specifically exempt from any
registration or licensing laws. The Supreme Court has said a felon
cannot be prosecuted for failing to register/license a gun, as to
require them to do so would be to violate thier 5th amendment rights.
> both can be killers in the wrong hands
>
> Wow this is interesting.....any other thoughts?
>
> I have tried to be unbiased to both sides
> Gears
Like I said, I think the time has come to take this private. If you (or
anyone) would like to continue this, let's do it via e-mail, and get
back on a question or information on P-UPs.
K
Rich Conaway
to say the word "gun" without a license (ok, you can say it, but don't
have one) and in Vermont, next door, there are no laws to speak of.
Karl Lindholm
his professorship was revoked, and his prize rescinded. Makes you
wonder about thier supposed lack of bias.
Karl
Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Karl Lindholm --
>
>
>>Professor Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime:
>>Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" has been
>>demonized by the anti-gun groups and praised by the pro-gun
>>groups, but the anti-gunners have not been able to find
>>fault with Lott's methodology in his statisical analysis.
>
>
> They've found numerous and massive faults with his
> methodology and his statistical analysis.
>
> See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/xlnr
> http://tinyurl.com/zcs2
> http://tinyurl.com/zcrr
> http://tinyurl.com/bkp2
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsh
> http://tinyurl.com/zcsk
>
>
>
Tom Shaw
TS
"Karl Lindholm" <ka...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4022b...@news1.prserv.net...
mac davis
wrote:
I'm not a gun nut, but i do own a few...
I used to carry a small hand gun when tent camping, but I don't feel
the need to at the places we go now...
I've always felt that the folks that REALLY believe that people
shouldn't have guns should try putting a "GUN FREE HOME" sign on the
front of their house for a while..
>Funny that the same sources found no faults with Bellisies book until
>his professorship was revoked, and his prize rescinded. Makes you
>wonder about thier supposed lack of bias.
>
>Karl
>
Mac
Tom Shaw
TS
"mac davis" <mac....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:72c7201j26vlgsn29...@4ax.com...
Tom Shaw
TS
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b090073010ca108...@news.teranews.com...
> Tom Shaw --
>
> > I also found massive faults with the links :-).
>
Tom Shaw
protection by S&W. You are the moron you silly twit.news:3822ce018ab9019a...@news.teranews.com...
> mac davis --
>
> > I've always felt that the folks that REALLY believe that
> > people shouldn't have guns should try putting a "GUN FREE
> > HOME" sign on the front of their house for a while..
>
>
> Why don't you put a 'This house protected by guns' sign on your
> home?
>
> It's an attractive advertisement for burglars who are more than
> happy to break into your house and take those guns.
Tom Shaw
to increase the crime rate by conficating honest peoples firearms. You are
a menace to civilization and a boon to the criminal element. With a name
like yours I would assume some middle eastern influence right...a goddam
Muslim.
TS
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3822ce018ab9019a...@news.teranews.com...
> mac davis --
>
> > people shouldn't have guns should try putting a "GUN FREE
> > HOME" sign on the front of their house for a while..
>
mac davis
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>mac davis --
>
>> I've always felt that the folks that REALLY believe that
>> people shouldn't have guns should try putting a "GUN FREE
>> HOME" sign on the front of their house for a while..
>
>That's a moronic claim.
>
>Why don't you put a 'This house protected by guns' sign on your
>home?
>
>It's an attractive advertisement for burglars who are more than
>happy to break into your house and take those guns.
i would, but then i'd have to take down the "Protected by Smith &
Wesson sign"...
besides, moronic works for me... never met a burglar that was a rhodes
scholar.....
mac
"Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at"
Mac
mac davis
wrote:
tom.. we really should know better than to feed the trolls, but it IS
fun, isn't it? lol....
i was even being nice, didn't use the "from my cold dead hands" line..
*g*
Mac
Dale Farmer
Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Tom Shaw --
>
> > You are a dumb bastard. People do put signs on their homes
> > claiming, e.g. protection by S&W.
>
> Prime targets for burglars.
Have any reliable statistics to back this up of just your
unsupported
assertion? My suspicion is that they have about the same effect as
those fake alarm company signs, but I've never heard of any studies
on the matter. Might make for an interesting undergrad research
project.
Anyway, some gunowners put up these signs on their homes,
any gun-haters willing to put their personal home up at risk with a
no-guns-here sign? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...
Anyway, this is getting rather far afield from trailers, so I'll not
be speaking to this thread more.
--Dale
mac davis
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>mac davis --
>
>>
>> tom.. we really should know better than to feed the trolls,
>> but it IS fun, isn't it? lol....
>
>It's fun watching a couple of red-necks expose themselves.
wow... name calling from a troll... what a surprise!
Mac
xpodx
be sent to the newsgroup.
Why not let gun advocates be quiet, let gun banners be quiet, let robbers
do their thing, and see who survives.
After all, survival is our God given right. If gun banners wish to reduce
their chances of survival of a violent crime then so be it.
You who are adamant about removing guns from societies hands will be
praying that a gun advocate walks around the corner carrying a concealed
weapon to save your ass from that criminal who is willing to shoot you for
your wallet. Now I said criminal and not law abiding citizen. Remember that
the criminal doesn't give a damn about your gun laws and is counting on your
success in your mission to disarm America so that he can rob with impunity.
If you do not want a gun then do not buy one, this is your right. Do not
infringe upon others right to buy and own a gun. Go about your life skipping
through the daisies. Just know that a law abiding citizen who is armed will
not brandish their weapon against you and demand your wallet. But that same
law abiding citizen will gladly place his/her life in harms way to protect
you from that crack smoking freak who will put a gun in your face and demand
your personal property. And that law abiding citizen will do it for free.
Free as in freedom and independence not servitude and dependence. Get with
the program, live free or move to a country that conducts itself more along
the lines you seem to want to live under and stop imposing your values on
others who obviously value their lives and property more than you.
FSKarasek - KF6HQC
kf6hqc#yahoo.com
--
FSKarasek - KF6HQC
kf6hqc#yahoo.com
--------------------------------
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3822ce018ab9019a...@news.teranews.com...
> mac davis --
>
> > I've always felt that the folks that REALLY believe that
> > people shouldn't have guns should try putting a "GUN FREE
> > HOME" sign on the front of their house for a while..
>
Dale Farmer
Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Dale Farmer --
>
> >> Prime targets for burglars.
> >
> > Have any reliable statistics to back this up of just your
> > unsupported assertion?
>
> Insurance companies. Guns are in the top twenty list of most
> frequently reported items stolen during a burglary.
Items frequently reported stolen from burglaries are not the
same as houses that have some sign indicating there are guns
in the home. Apples and pomegranates.
Guns fall into the class of items that burglars like to steal.
Easily portable, and desirable on the black/grey market. Same
reason they take the stereo, TV, computer, jewelry, power tools,
etc.
Burglar busts in the back door, Goes to the master bedroom
looks for jewelry, cash, etc. and pockets it. Grabs TV and puts
it by the back door. Grabs the computer and accessories from
the home office, grabs stereo and big TV from the first floor.
Checks the freezer for jewelry and cash, quick look in basement
and garage for power tools, and whatever else looks attractive.
Then he load all his swag in the car and leaves. Total time in the
residence is something like fifteen minutes.
--Dale
mac davis
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
so. following that logic, more homes lose dogs when they have a
"beware of dog" sign"?
>Dale Farmer --
>
>>> Prime targets for burglars.
>>
>> Have any reliable statistics to back this up of just your
>> unsupported assertion?
>
>Insurance companies. Guns are in the top twenty list of most
>frequently reported items stolen during a burglary.
Mac
mac davis
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>mac davis --
>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:56:17 GMT, Carl Nisarel
>> <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>mac davis --
>>>
>>>>
>>>> tom.. we really should know better than to feed the trolls,
>>>> but it IS fun, isn't it? lol....
>>>
>>>It's fun watching a couple of red-necks expose themselves.
>>
>> wow.
>
>It's pretty easy with a guppy like you.
>
>Catch n release.
>
>Go for the bait again, dimwit.
there we go again... no facts or logic, so it's name calling...
go troll a gun group and the rest of us will talk about camping...
Mac
Tom Shaw
> Dale Farmer --
>
> > Carl Nisarel wrote:
> >
> >> Dale Farmer --
> >>
> >> >> Prime targets for burglars.
> >> >
> >> > Have any reliable statistics to back this up of just
> >> > your
> >> > unsupported assertion?
> >>
> >> Insurance companies. Guns are in the top twenty list of
> >> most frequently reported items stolen during a burglary.
> >
> > Items frequently reported stolen from burglaries are
> > not the
> > same as houses that have some sign indicating there are
> > guns in the home.
>
> burglars do not necessarily or automatically fear homes with
> guns.
O but they do. They steal firearms from homes wherein they find them but
they will avoid homes of gun owners if they know about it. They are dumb
but not that dumb.
>
> ....
>
> > Guns fall into the class of items that burglars like to
> > steal.
>
> That's one of the reasons why advertising it is foolish.
>
> I'll also tell you why it is foolish.
>
> If someone breaks into your home and you shoot him, your
> insurance company will not back you up. The police and the
> prosecutors will view your 'sign' as an indication that you
> were planning on shooting the person. It will be used by a
> prosecutor to change a justifiable shooting verdict into an
> indictment for manslaughter.
I do not believe you know the above to be true where is your proof of these
assertions?.
>
>
> (Note: The 'you' is non-specific and does not mean 'Dale
> Farmer')
>
TS
> ....
Joe
ground. A local news show ran a short interview with a cop on the subject of
how to keep safe while camping. Much to my surprise the cop recommended the
camper display several NRA stickers. NOT any of these "Those found here at
at night will be found here in the morning" type of smart-ass bumper
stickers as they are usually taken as a bluff, just a few small low-keyed
"Im the NRA and I Vote" type of stickers that make no boast or threat but
plants the thought in the crooks mind that the prospective victim just MIGHT
have something.. This was said to work even if the camper has out-of-state
plates.
The short interview was remembered because, on the same show, there was
another interview with a state senator that wanted to repeal portions of our
shall-issue concealed carry laws. He claimed that personal firearms served
no purpose in crime deterrence or self defense. Which was an odd claim in
the face of what the cop said and also in view of the fact that the state
senate building here is practically a fortress garrisoned by a small army.
"Karl Lindholm" <ka...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:400ed...@news1.prserv.net...
Tom Shaw
All you do is make blanket statements of notions which support your asinine
position. Let's get it straight. You are a piece of shit, an asshole, a
nincompoop, an agitator, a troll, a prick, and and goddam foreigner. Shut
up.
TSnews:34615c1c479d134a...@news.teranews.com...
> Tom Shaw --> ....
>
> >> That guns are frequently stolen from homes indicates that
> >> burglars do not necessarily or automatically fear homes
> >> with guns.
> >
> > O but they do. They steal firearms from homes wherein they
> > find them but they will avoid homes of gun owners if they
> > know about it.
>
>
>
> ....
the old anarchist
"Carl Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:08e7ac3f7942179a...@news.teranews.com...
> Tom Shaw --
>
> > Carl,
> > All you do is make
>
> people like you look like babbling fools who can't control
> themselves.
>
>
> ....
Warren or Madge Moore
> A 'law abiding citizen' like Roy Levins, a CCW permit
holder in
> Florida who shot a teenager in the back after the kid rang
his
> doorbell and ran.
Out of more than 800,000 Florida CCW permits issued, how
many of these examples can you provide?
A better "example" might be Carl Rowan, former big-time
columnist, Black, vehemently anti-gun, Washington, DC
resident (DC has the most stringent anti-handgun laws of any
municipality in the US), who did pretty much the same sort
of thing...with an illegal weapon, and without benefit of
any sort of license or training.
In either case, they just _might_ have been acting out of
fear for their lives.
Warren S. Moore
1995 Coleman Arcadia
2003 Hyundai Santa Fe
CDW license holder in KY since they became available. (And,
no, I haven't shot anyone lately, (or even _at_ anyone)
since I left Uncle Sam's employ in the late 60's.)
Tom Shaw
gun-ownership. He thinks it is okay for the folks like himself with
automatic protection from the law by virtue of being a big time columnist
but not okay for you and me. What a hypocrit! There is also a famous
female person (I forget which one it is right now) who is against guns but
who is accompanied all the time by armed body guards.
TS
"Warren or Madge Moore" <warren...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:402c28a5$0$82215$a046...@nnrp.fuse.net...
HeatMan
"Tom Shaw" <a000...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:c0j3a4$g...@library1.airnews.net...
> And to top it off that son of a bitch has not changed his stance on
> gun-ownership. He thinks it is okay for the folks like himself with
> automatic protection from the law by virtue of being a big time columnist
> but not okay for you and me. What a hypocrit! There is also a famous
> female person (I forget which one it is right now) who is against guns but
> who is accompanied all the time by armed body guards.
> TS
The 'famous person' (if you can call her that) is Rosie O'Donnel.
I usually stay out of these discussions. My stance is that a criminal
prefers a unarmed victim. Figure that out.
I am now done with this topic and will not reply to or read any further
posts on this topic.
Karl Lindholm
This is an argument that of course no one can ever win. This (and any
other) argument can of course always be lost. It is lost by the first
participant that engages in ad hominem and personal attacks, rather than
calmly debating the facts of any debate.
Do your best, I will not respond to you anymore, as I will just filter
your name out. I was hoping for more, but then again, I have yet had
any discussion about firearms with someone holding points of view akin
to what yours appear to be that have not engaged in emotionalism, rather
than sticking to facts. This of course happens frequently when someone
engages in an argument where the facts don't support thier point of view.
Again, thanks, Carl, you've strongly reinforced my beliefs.
Karl
Carl Nisarel wrote:
> Yes, they were too complex for you to read and comprehend.
> That's a moronic claim.
> people like you look like babbling fools who can't control
> themselves.
> You aren't using logic, 'mac'. You're using your own inane and
> nearsighted thinking.
> It's fun watching a couple of red-necks expose themselves.
> It's pretty easy with a guppy like you.
>
> Catch n release.
>
> Go for the bait again, dimwit.
> Yep, there you go again. Straight for the obvious bait.
>
> You're not very smart and you can't control yourself.
>
> It's fun playing with an idiot like you who is unable to stop
> himself from responding.
> You're just a typical racist and paranoid bigot and you're type
> of person that is what is wrong with the US.
> Now, keep your eyes firmly shut to reality.
HeatMan
> HeatMan --
>
> > I usually stay out of these discussions. My stance is that
> > a criminal prefers a unarmed victim.
>
I do. You must be some kind of a stalker or another kind or crazy lunatic.
My deputy friend tells me he has never seen a house broken into that has any
kind of a NRA sticker on it. Usually NRA stickers do give the impression of
there being weapons in the house.
There is a statement that really fits here.
PLONK
That's the sound of you going into my killfile. See ya in the next life,
troll.
Geronimo
regular discussions.
Neil Larson
statistics in the other industrialized countries. They are ALL significantly
lower than in the US. Canada, Great Britan, France, Spain, Germany, even
Russia. All of them. And before you state it, Canada has more guns per
capita tham the US. Maybe it is an education issue? Maybe it is that people
in those countries don't feel the need for an AK-47 in their trunk or a
Desert Eagle in their glove box. They seem to have a much more responsible
attitude towards guns and crime. But then, they also have significantly
fewer alcohol related problems. Maybe it is just a more mature society.
I have been a gun owner, and a member of the NRA. I quit because I don't
believe in their party line. And before you pull any stupid shit with me
about being a muslim or a foreigner, a am a retired US Navy Chief and shot
competivly in the Navy. I just don't believe in the need for guns anymore
which is my right as an American. And as I live in Chicago, I probably have
more exposure to violent crime than most of you.
I personally wish that the US would put some extreamly heavy penalties in
place for people that use guns in a crime and make them much harder to buy
and keep.
Just my $.02
"Tom Shaw" <a000...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:c03sjg$5...@library1.airnews.net...
Len Mullen
> place for people that use guns in a crime
This is the real issue, Neil. In this country, we make it difficult for
people to own guns, but don't punish those who use them improperly. With
liberty comes responsibility. If the penalty for possession of an
unregistered gun was ten years mandatory, people would only carry an
unregistered gun when they were preparing to use it.
And ditto on use in a crime -- ten for possession, ten for showing, and ten
more for discharge.
Between you and me, though, I'd rather get shot than stabbed or bludgeoned,
so let's just generalize to weapon in the case of a crime.
But the liberals who want to ban guns won't punish the victims who use them.
In fact, they are working to get the guy who inspired the Brady bill out of
jail.
--
Len Mullen
len_m...@prodigy.net
Neil Larson
goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That is probably (or
certainly) the difference between the US and the other countries that I
mentioned, the level of punishment. When an individual feels that the odds
are in his favor in commission of a crime, he is more likely to commit it.
It is funny, growing up in the Navy, I thouight I was a Conservative. After
I left and settled into my second career, I thought I was a Liberal. Now I
realize that I don't fit. I guess I am a fence rider. And, I believe that
both groups have the wrong approach to guns laws. I don't have a problem
with guns, but I do with the laws that govern their use and the penalties
that accompanly the illegale use of them.
"Len Mullen" <len_m...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:AUOXb.36596$uz6....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Tom Shaw
I said the crime rate in the UK had gone up. You talk about crime
statistics.
Apples and oranges????
Kiss my ass and dont jump to conclusions so damn fast. Get laid..
TS
"Neil Larson" <neillar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Iv-dnSoD9vV...@comcast.com...
Len Mullen
It is where I live -- legally anyway. Impossible in Massachusetts --
legally anyway.
--
Len Mullen
len_m...@prodigy.net
dbn
like my guns, dont want to live anyplace that says I cant kill paper
targets...
Dan
--
If I am tired now, why do I have to RETIRE later?
Len Mullen
> own guns"
>
> Do you often confuse 'Massachusetts' for the entire USA?
I was considering this from the perspecitve of a camper, Carl. If you were
driving around the country in a camper, the laws of the lands you drive
through apply. And, believe it or not (sometimes I can't believe it),
Massachusetts is part of the country ;-)
> It is not impossible to legally own a firearm in Massachusetts.
> It's difficult to own certain types of firearms not others
But we really ought to take this thread elsewhere -- it's way off topic for
alt.rv.pop-up-trailers.
Have a great Presidents Day...len!
--
Len Mullen
len_m...@prodigy.net
Geronimo
were
> driving around the country in a camper, the laws of the lands you drive
> through apply. And, believe it or not (sometimes I can't believe it),
> Massachusetts is part of the country ;-)
It's become the most expensive part of the country :-)