Student Attacked at School With Stun Gun
_ G O D _
Taser Gun Used To Settle Parking Argument In Colorado, Gunmen Unhurt
USA
The transit police force of Metro Vancouver, though,
were more serious when it came to Taser use following
rising public opinion against the stun gun....
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010998106
In brief: Zimbabwe; Philippines; India
UK
Harvey Epstein, 36, a restaurant owner of Boulder,
Colorado, was arrested for using a stun gun after the
row with Casey Dane, a security supervisor.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3965394.ece
RCMP use of Tasers has more than doubled in past two years
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Former BC premier Ujjal Dosanjh, now a Liberal
MP and public-safety critic who is sitting on a
parliamentary committee examining stun gun use
in Canada, ...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=525374
Longmont man arrested in stun gun case
Longmont, CO, USA
BOULDER
A Longmont man suspected of threatening two
security guards and shooting a stun gun at one
was arrested by Boulder police Saturday night....
http://www.timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=8789
Stun strike motive emerges
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Julie Bell, 39, and Leshawn Fisher, 36, were charged
with conspiracy and assault and battery with a dangerous
weapon in the stun gun attack ...
http://newsok.com/stun-strike-motive-emerges/article/3245074/
Melrose Student Beaten and Attacked With Stun Gun
Memphis,TN,USA
Four trespassers managed to get inside Melrose High
School and beat and attacked a student with a stun gun....
http://www.memphisrap.com/cgi-bin/content/pub9990263694155.cgi?itemid=9990288305448
Mom Accused of Taking Part in Stun Gun Attack on Teacher
Columbia,SC,USA
Days after the stun gun assault on Putnam City North biology
teacher and cheerleading coach Bethany Lorenz, Leshawn
Fisher turned herself into police saying ...
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=62128
Second Suspect in Stun Gun Case Identified
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Oklahoma City police say a second suspect has been
implicated in a case that involved the use of a stun gun
on a teacher. Police say there is probable cause ...
http://www.ksbitv.com/home/19009754.html
Mid-South Student Attacked at School With Stun Gun
Memphis, TN, USA
Three of the four are also charged with assault after a
Melrose senior was attacked with a stun gun outside
the attendance office. ...
http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=804c2dc9-8359-4c85-ac62-fc6501d58610
Suspects charged in stun gun attack
Denison, TX, USA
OKLAHOMA CITY
Prosecutors have charged two women in the
stun gun attack on a Putnam City North High
School ...
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=8337723
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
SIRHANSIRHAN
Topp@Work
"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
> wrote:
>
> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
Ban STUN guns, huh...
I see you didn't even read the post.....
CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
Bert Hyman
<KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote:
> Only thing is, cars are designed for transportation while guns are
> designed only to kill.
Wrong on both counts, but you're used to that, aren't you?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Herb Martin
"Topp@Work" <topp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u6udnYO73dQWFqnV...@giganews.com...
>
> "Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>
> Ban STUN guns, huh...
> I see you didn't even read the post.....
>
> CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
> Go ban them first....
Ok, so far.
> You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
Untrue. You have specific 4th Amendment rights that apply to all
property in general.
Firearms are however offered specific enumeration and further
protection by the 2nd Amendment.
You would still have a right to firearms merely under the 4th
Amendment and without the 2nd.
Herb Martin
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
To kill and for other things -- but design is not a criteria here since
KILLING VIOLENT CRIMINALS, or at least STOPPING them
is a GOOD THING.
FerdinandAkin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>
> That would be a classic for sure!
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
How about a Bridger Model 85 Shoulder Line Gun?
http://www.navalcompany.com/linegunkit.htm
Looks like you are and continue to be wrong there Kevin.
NEXT!
.
Herb Martin
> the dozen or so in D.C. that were shot at random,
They were shot at random (except I have no idea what you are referencing
in DC) at Columbine and Virginia Tech and in either case had some law
abiding citizens been armed many of the deaths would have been
prevented.
Instead, fools like you made up these "Gun Free Victim Disarmament
Zones" and keep getting innocent people killed when they cannot defend
themselves.
Such rampage shootings DECREASE when Shall Issue concealed carry
is enacted, and such practically never happen anywhere that is not a
"gun free zone".
RD (The Sandman)
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
Wrong again......this is becoming a habit with you isn't it. ;)
--
Sleep well, tonight.......
RD (The Sandman)
"The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer
body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a
rattlesnake by sitting on it."
Judge Alex Kozinski, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Herb Martin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:03:36 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> highschool? Let me know how that would work out for you.
> It doesn't matter whether they were shot at "random" or not. That
> really isn't the issue. They're still DEAD!
>>
>>Instead, fools like you made up these "Gun Free Victim Disarmament
>>Zones" and keep getting innocent people killed when they cannot defend
>>themselves.
>
> carrying guns to school. they've proven they can't behave with them.
>>
>>Such rampage shootings DECREASE when Shall Issue concealed carry
>>is enacted, and such practically never happen anywhere that is not a
>>"gun free zone".
>>
>>
> difference I'm sure.
Well yes, if you let law-abiding citizens arm themselves then when
people survive a rampage shooting (as has happened many times)
they are indeed grateful.
What a differenence being alive vs. being dead.
Try it.
Scout
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
Please indicate exactly how the following guns are "designed only to kill"
Slag gun
Skeet shotgun
Benchrest Rifle
Olympic Target Pistol
Herb Martin
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eB2Zj.7633$HJ5.6282@trnddc01...
Defensive 1911 pistol even. It doesn't need to kill -- the mere possibility
is sufficient to deter all but the most determined criminal.
Scout
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:kmc9349a5koepenh0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:14:02 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Kevin O'Connell <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in
>>news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>>I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>
>>>>CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>>Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>>
>>Wrong again......this is becoming a habit with you isn't it. ;)
>
>
Depends on the car. Some are designed to kill people.
> Guns aren't designed for killing?
Only those designed for use by assassins and hunters, but then you have
shown yourself to be pretty ignorant of the whole topic of guns. Which BTW
makes your comments about as relevant as the meowing of a kitten.
Scout
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:52:07 -0500, "Herb Martin"
You mean the place where law abiding citizens were unable to arm themselves?
> and the dead at Columbine
Again a place where law abiding citizens were unable to arm themselves?
> and the victims of the D.C. sniper, the list goes on.
DC....isnt' that a place where law abiding citizens are unable to arm
themselves?
> Ask them if you
> can.
Sure, just as soon as you show me how your laws stopped these events from
occurring.
Scout
Yes. To see if you know what you're talking about and can back up your
assertion above.
> You're going to try and get out from under with
> something like this?
Not only trying, I'm succeeding and the longer you dance around and refuse
to address the specific examples I have pointed out the more you will show
yourself to be an idiot and your assertion to be a lie.
> Guns are only for harm
Oh? Where did the 'kill' go? Now it's only 'harm'????
I have to say with a backpedal like that it's surprising you don't have
whiplash.
Anway, take the above list and show me where they are only for harm.
Oh, and I accept by your goalpost movement that your assertion about 'kill'
was utter BS.
>and there's nothing more
> to say.
Except proving that your new assertion is any more valid than your old one.
>You would also have the populace armed with automatics and
> machine guns and gawd knows what else, so don't play this game.
Na, I believe people should be free to chose. If they don't want to be armed
with automatics and machine guns and God (sic) knows what else, then they
don't have to be. See unlike you I'm willing to let people make their own
choice.
> You'll
> lose.
Odd, the state of the gun control law keeps getting better and better as
more oppressive gun control is repealed or overturned. If that's losing,
then let me continue to lose. Pretty soon we would have no gun control laws
then.
> Guns are designed to kill!
Oh, so now you are back to kill. Yet you still haven't shown where even one
of the specific examples given you are "designed to kill".
Looks like you can't support your claims, you can only repeat them hoping
that if you repeat it enough someone might actually accept your unsupported
bullshit.
Herb Martin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:52:07 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> and the victims of the D.C. sniper, the list goes on. Ask them if you
> can.
Yes, ask them would they rather have been armed than be shot down
like cattle or been allowed to defend themselves.
We know that had a few of them been armed then many fewer would
have died, maybe no one even.
We know this because in those classrooms where defensive actions
were taken, the death toll was either greatly reduced or precisely
ZERO.
Several students took action and at least one brave professor who
all could have stopped Cho had they merely been armed.
Herb Martin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:52:42 GMT, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
> something like this?
No, he just proved you wrong. Live with it.
Scout
And so we see that denial isn't just a river in Africa.
> my statement stands as written.
Sure it does, and it has been exposed as the lie it is.
> guns are designed to
> do damage.
Damage is a long way from "kill". Tell me do you get whiplash when you
backpedal that suddenly?
> deal with it.
Fine. I can damage my possessions however I like and if I chose to use a
gun, then what concern is it of yours.
Of course, I can hit a target and not damage it, so I must be doing
something wrong.
Maybe the fact that the target is made of steel has something to do with it?
Gray Ghost
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
><topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>
> Next!
> That would be a classic for sure!
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Really?
What is an Olympic Free style pistol made for?
What are trap and skeet shotguns made for?
Frank
Gray Ghost
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:47:38 GMT, "Scout"
> It's EVERY concern of mine!
>
>>
>>Of course, I can hit a target and not damage it, so I must be doing
>>something wrong.
>>
>>Maybe the fact that the target is made of steel has something to do with
>>it?
>>
>
>
> Guns are designed to kill. I don't backpedal.
Really?
What is an Olympic Free style pistol made for?
What are trap and skeet shotguns made for?
> Excuse me but do you have the idea that I'm afraid of you goons?
> Oh gawd, please say no.
>
> Why would you hit a steel target that wasn't bothering you?
Because it's fun? Because I want to? Becuase it is a skill that takes time to
develope?
I'm sure you take part in risky behavior I would not approve of. I could give
a crap, have fun.
Frank
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
> >
> >Ban STUN guns, huh...
> >I see you didn't even read the post.....
> >
> >CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
> >Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
> >
>
> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
You mean I've been MISusing guns every time I used them for target practice?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:3ic9349sr4qrv0vql...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:03:36 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> Really? So now we should all carry guns into the classrooms, even in
> highschool? Let me know how that would work out for you.
> It doesn't matter whether they were shot at "random" or not. That
> really isn't the issue. They're still DEAD!
> >
> >Instead, fools like you made up these "Gun Free Victim Disarmament
> >Zones" and keep getting innocent people killed when they cannot defend
> >themselves.
>
> Innocent? who's innocent?
Certainly none of the victims at Columbine or Virginia Tech.
> You really don't want high school kids
> carrying guns to school. they've proven they can't behave with them.
> >
> >Such rampage shootings DECREASE when Shall Issue concealed carry
> >is enacted, and such practically never happen anywhere that is not a
> >"gun free zone".
> >
> >
> Oh, well pass that on to those survivors. That will make all the
> difference I'm sure.
Chris
.
.
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:l8e934p2rujmo2me5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:52:42 GMT, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> What's this a test? You're going to try and get out from under with
> something like this? Guns are only for harm and there's nothing more
> to say.
You have downgraded your claim from "designed only to kill" to "only for
harm". How come?
> You would also have the populace armed with automatics and
> machine guns and gawd knows what else, so don't play this game. You'll
> lose. Guns are designed to kill!
Guns as in ALL guns?
Chris
.
.
"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
news:9sp934l439bv4rl1e...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:47:38 GMT, "Scout"
> It's EVERY concern of mine!
Because?
>
> >
> >Of course, I can hit a target and not damage it, so I must be doing
> >something wrong.
> >
> >Maybe the fact that the target is made of steel has something to do with
it?
> >
>
>
> Guns are designed to kill. I don't backpedal.
> Excuse me but do you have the idea that I'm afraid of you goons?
> Oh gawd, please say no.
>
> Why would you hit a steel target that wasn't bothering you?
Because it's legal?
Scout
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:47:38 GMT, "Scout"
Why? Do I care that you are damaging your brain by sniffing all that glue?
>>Of course, I can hit a target and not damage it, so I must be doing
>>something wrong.
>>
>>Maybe the fact that the target is made of steel has something to do with
>>it?
>>
>
>
> Guns are designed to kill. I
and yet you can't tell me what the examples above are designed to kill. For
most people that would give them a clue that they are wrong, but not you.
>don't backpedal.
Then quite giving an excuse that you don't have to support your assertion by
using the examples given and changing your claim to 'harm' or 'damage'.
> Excuse me but do you have the idea that I'm afraid of you goons?
> Oh gawd, please say no.
If you're not afraid, then why do you want to take our guns?
> Why would you hit a steel target that wasn't bothering you?
Because I can.
Morton Davis
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 01:47:38 GMT, "Scout"
>
>>
>>something wrong.
>>
>>Maybe the fact that the target is made of steel has something to do with
>>it?
>>
>
>
Guns can't kill without a human being. Human beings kill. Guns do not.
Chris
.
.
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:kOdZj.174867$yE1.167607@attbi_s21...
That was my thought. I would sure like to see a gun go kill someone. My
question is WHICH guns kill; or do ALL guns kill? And for the ones that do,
can they be rehabilitated?
>
>
Herb Martin
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:dh9Zj.1102$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
>
>
> --
> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> custody of such child]
The above is WRONG but the following might be an in principle
correction that works:
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to be
considered fairly for custody of such child]
Herb Martin
>
> .
> .
> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:kOdZj.174867$yE1.167607@attbi_s21...
>> > Guns are designed to kill.
>>
>> Guns can't kill without a human being. Human beings kill. Guns do not.
>
> That was my thought. I would sure like to see a gun go kill someone. My
> question is WHICH guns kill; or do ALL guns kill? And for the ones that
> do,
> can they be rehabilitated?
For a long time there was a fellow with a webcam watching
his AR15 (IIRC) leaning in the corner of his room -- just
in case it would suddently go crazy and start killing.
Anyone could participate in this important "gun watch" of the evil
black rifle.
I can't find it today (with a quick Google) though.
Bama Brian
> On 21 May 2008 21:13:16 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com Kevin O'Connell
>> <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Only thing is, cars are designed for transportation while guns are
>>> designed only to kill.
>
>
> Cars aren't designed for transportation? You mean I'm using mine all
> wrong? Maybe it was to be a paperweight instead? Oh sorry about
> that! I was using to get from point a to point b. silly me!
>
> Guns aren't designed to kill? mmmm, they are for decoration then?
> Christmas tree ornaments? ??
Handguns are designed for many purposes. I wouldn't carry a single-shot
iron sihouette pistol for personal protection.
Hunting rifles are certainly designed to kill, depending on the game.
But a pistol designed for personal protection is primarily a credible
deterrent, and not necessarily a killing tool.
Look at John Hinckley, who shot both Reagan and his press secretary,
James Brady. Both Reagan and Brady were seriously wounded at close
range - but both survived.
Yes, Brady suffered crippling injuries because he was shot in the head -
but he could have gotten those injuries from a baseball bat equally well.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:35 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>
>> "Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
>> news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>> Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>> I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>
>>>> CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>> Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>
>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>> KILLING VIOLENT CRIMINALS, or at least STOPPING them
>> is a GOOD THING.
>>
>
>
> I guess those 30 at Virginia Tech, and those dozens at Columbine, and
> all crminals and needed to die. OK, I understand now.
> I just didn't know them that well.
So you'll dance in the blood of a horrible tragedy to make a point?
Cho fired at least 174 rounds. Yes, he killed 32 students. But if guns
were designed to kill, one would think that closer to 174 students would
have died.
Bama Brian
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:03:36 -0500, "Herb Martin">> news:up9934hgdu6mgc54f...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:35 -0500, "Herb Martin"
>>> <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
>>>> news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>>>> Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>>>> I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>>>> Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>>>
>>>>> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
>>>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>>>> To kill and for other things -- but design is not a criteria here since
>>>> KILLING VIOLENT CRIMINALS, or at least STOPPING them
>>>> is a GOOD THING.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess those 30 at Virginia Tech, and those dozens at Columbine, and
>>> the dozen or so in D.C. that were shot at random,
>> in DC) at Columbine and Virginia Tech and in either case had some law
>> abiding citizens been armed many of the deaths would have been
>> prevented.
>
> Really? So now we should all carry guns into the classrooms, even in
> highschool? Let me know how that would work out for you.
> It doesn't matter whether they were shot at "random" or not. That
> really isn't the issue. They're still DEAD!
>> Instead, fools like you made up these "Gun Free Victim Disarmament
>> Zones" and keep getting innocent people killed when they cannot defend
>> themselves.
>
> carrying guns to school. they've proven they can't behave with them.
More than one school shooting has been cut short by an armed teacher.
And in another college shooting, the shooter was stopped by an armed
student.
Herb Martin
>>Cho fired at least 174 rounds. Yes, he killed 32 students. But if guns
>>were designed to kill, one would think that closer to 174 students would
>>have died.
>
>
> That doesn't make the 32 any less dead. I'm not trying to make a
> point. The fact was already there.
No it doesn't but had someone (or ones) been allowed to be
armed on the precise same rules as off the imaginary boundary
of the VT University then the number would have been lower.
Maybe half, maybe one quarty, maybe only by one, and even
though unlikely (since Cho had the element of surprise at first)
maybe NO ONE had he picked the armed person first, would
have been killed.
In fact since we know that must psychopaths like Cho studiously
AVOID anywhere that allows citizens to be armed, so saying
that no one might have been killed is not unrealistic.
Allowing the law-abiding to be armed would have cause precisely
NO PROBLEM as wel.
RD (The Sandman)
> Guns aren't designed to kill?
Mine haven't killed anyone. Are they defective? Am I using them wrong?
--
Sleep well, tonight.......
RD (The Sandman)
"The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer
body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a
rattlesnake by sitting on it."
Judge Alex Kozinski, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Herb Martin
>>More than one school shooting has been cut short by an armed teacher.
>>And in another college shooting, the shooter was stopped by an armed
>>student.
>
>
> But why should it have to come to that?
Because there are PSYCHOPATHS like Cho.
Even if you took away Cho's firearms (and there is a dispute about
whether he could legally have purchased them if the state had just
done its job and entered him into the database) he might still have
used a BOMB or a KNIFE or a SWORD etc.
Fires have generally been responsible for the largest mass murders
by people like Cho.
In the case of Columbine, a realistic argument can be made that
had those two idiots had no firearms things would have been worse:
Why? Because this would have forced them to focus on their
BOMBS which they failed to detonate.
Notice that at Columbine the bombs were in place and would have
likely killed 10 times more -- but the idiots failed to detonate those
bombs (which isn't THAT hard had they focused on this.)
Fire is impossible to regulate since gasoline is everywhere and
impossible to control.
10 gallons of gasoline can pretty much take out any public place.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:20:35 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
>>news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>>I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>
>>>>CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>>Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>>
>>To kill and for other things -- but design is not a criteria here since
>>KILLING VIOLENT CRIMINALS, or at least STOPPING them
>>is a GOOD THING.
>>
>
>
> I guess those 30 at Virginia Tech, and those dozens at Columbine, and
> the dozen or so in D.C. that were shot at random, I guess they were
> all crminals and needed to die. OK, I understand now.
No, you don't. What you cited above was *misuse* of a firearm. An abuse
of the right to carry one. Much like the difference between someone who
takes an occasional toke versus someone who spends the family paycheck on
booze and has an accident due to drunkeness.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 18:14:02 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Kevin O'Connell <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in
>>news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>>Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>>I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>
>>>>CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>>Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>>
>>Wrong again......this is becoming a habit with you isn't it. ;)
>
>
> Cars aren't designed for transporatation?
> Guns aren't designed for killing?
There are many guns that have been designed for reasons other than
killing. In fact, killing was not even on the list of priorities. You,
however, would rather wallow in ignorance than be enlightened.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:11:49 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> no he didn't. my statement stands as written. guns are designed to
> do damage. deal with it.
Kevie, why don't you simply go back to alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic and alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots where you may have some
more knowledge of the subject than you do here. I doubt that, but one
would have to think you would have some knowledge of some subject and you
haven't shown any in here. I noticed that you post some of the same
inane drivel in those newsgroups, too.
RD (The Sandman)
> But why should it have to come to that?
What if the student was trying to set off a bomb? The twits at Columbine
were but they couldn't get them to go off. Their plan was for several
propane bombs to go off killing many more students than did die. They
then were going to roam through the school and shoot anyone they saw
surviving the bombs.
FerdinandAkin
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 23:52:42 GMT, "Scout"
>
>> "Kevin O'Connell" <KevinO'Con...@sdu.gov> wrote in message
>> news:0r3934tn9ljfsgdrb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
>>> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
>>>> Ban STUN guns, huh...
>>>> I see you didn't even read the post.....
>>>>
>>>> CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
>>>> Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
>>>>
>>> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
>>> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
>>
>> Slag gun
>>
>> Skeet shotgun
>>
>> Benchrest Rifle
>>
>> Olympic Target Pistol
>>
>>
> What's this a test? You're going to try and get out from under with
> machine guns and gawd knows what else, so don't play this game. You'll
> lose. Guns are designed to kill!
A 12 gauge shotgun can be used as flare gun for the purpose of saving lives. West Marine sells 12 gauge flares that can be safely fired from an ordinary 12 gauge shotgun in an emergency situation.
http://tinyurl.com/3ko4gl
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ko4gl
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/299481/377%20710/0/flares/Primary%20Search/mode%20matchallpartial/20/0?N=377%20710&Ne=0&Ntt=flares&Ntk=Primary%20Search&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial&Nao=20&Ns=0&keyword=flares&isLTokenURL=true&storeNum=8&subdeptNum=50&classNum=11401
DISCLAIMER: The ORION 12-Gauge High Performance Red Meteor Flares are magnesium flares which can damage a long shotgun barrel by over heating and burning. (Don't try this one at home folks.)
FerdinandAkin
Herb Martin
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA67537...@216.196.97.136...
>> Cars aren't designed for transporatation?
>> Guns aren't designed for killing?
>
> There are many guns that have been designed for reasons other than
> killing. In fact, killing was not even on the list of priorities. You,
> however, would rather wallow in ignorance than be enlightened.
An automobile (car) designed for "killing" is called a HumVee
or TANK usually.
Herb Martin
Right.
> The problem I have is someone who is normally 'law
> abiding' without a history, doesn't like it that they get a flunking
> grade, they flip out and we have dead teachers and students.
Would YOU do that?
Such is incredibly rare, and were other persons armed the result
is that such rampages get STOPPED FASTER but more importantly
are LESS LIKELY to occur.
You cannot argue with the simple fact that Shall Issue CHL and
removing "Gun Free Zones" statistically reduced such rampage
murders which is what you claimed to want to do.
Reduce such murders by allowing responsible citizens to be armed
in those places.
> Same with the workplace.
The problem with your concern is that such laws don't stop the
rampage murder but rather ENCOURAGE them to choose such
places where law-abiding citizens are by law disarmed.
> I had this guy who worked at my office a couple
> of years ago, a Mormon kid, who spoke of nothing but guns and was
> always browsing the Internet gun sites. He was mild mannered enough
> and did his work, but no matter what we were talking about, the
> subject would ALWAYS turn to guns.
So? Some people are like that about girls (or boys), football, golf,
politics, computers or whatever.
Hobbies and interests are no big deal.
> He made a statement once that it
> was too bad he couldn't bring his gun to the office.
Yes, it was too bad. Had he been a criminal or had criminal intentions
he would have just brought it anyway.
Anyone willing to commit murder is certainly not going to balk at a
minor firearm infraction.
> I asked why he
> wanted to and he replied, "well, you just never know....."
Correct. You NEVER know until it happens. At that point it is
all but guaranteed that ONLY the nutcase will have a firearm when
you are in a Victim Disarmament "Gun Free Zone".
> This unnerved a lot of people as I felt obliged to report it.
Why? Were he dangerous he likely would have JUST BROUGHT it
despite the law or rules.
> They
> finally got rid of him for one reason or another. But do you see what
> I mean?
Not at all. The person who will follow the rules and law is practically
never a problem.
You have provide NO evidence for distrusting his good intentions.
But, let's pretend he did "go nuts" -- then it would certainly be better
for 2 or 3 other law-abiding people to have firearms to ANSWER
the threat provided by a sudden attack.
There will statistically always be more ARMED CHL (or otherwise
legal) carriers than there will be psychopaths intent on doing murder.
Better to ALLOW the law-abiding to carry, than to die without
defense wouldn't you think?
RD (The Sandman)
RD (The Sandman)
> It's always good when scum like that kill themselves. Saves the
> taxpayers a lot of $
Unfortunately, they take too many people with them. One reason why some
of us would like to see school faculty and maintenance armed *if* they
wish to be and have a valid CCW. It wouldn't be many of them but perhaps
enough in the right place.
RD (The Sandman)
> I don't know. The problem I have is someone who is normally 'law
> abiding' without a history, doesn't like it that they get a flunking
> grade, they flip out and we have dead teachers and students.
You already have that. It doesn't happen that often and if the teacher
or someone else is there and armed, the end result should be less dead.
> Same with the workplace.
See above. Why can't a CCW holder (who, BTW, has already been background
checked) carry concealed at work?
> I had this guy who worked at my office a couple
> of years ago, a Mormon kid, who spoke of nothing but guns and was
> always browsing the Internet gun sites. He was mild mannered enough
> subject would ALWAYS turn to guns. He made a statement once that it
> was too bad he couldn't bring his gun to the office. I asked why he
> wanted to and he replied, "well, you just never know....."
> This unnerved a lot of people as I felt obliged to report it. They
> finally got rid of him for one reason or another. But do you see what
> I mean?
Not really. His concern may have been quite real. I don't know what
your office or the area it is in is like. If he had been background
checked (held a CCW) I would have little problem with it. As a rule,
those with a CCW are a lot more law abiding and reasonable than the
general population.
I have carried a gun off and on for over fifty years and although I have
been *extremely* pissed a time or two, I have never even considered using
a gun to solve my problems. It doesn't come to mind. I always keep
myself alert to situational awareness but simply never thought about
because I was pissed.
Herb Martin
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:28:31 -0500, "Herb Martin"
Well, that sounds like progress you are making.
However, just to be clear, there are NOT always 2 ways to look
at things unless you count "emotional, irrational, nonsensical" as
a method.
Sometimes there is only one way, sometimes there are many more.
But the only VALID ways to analyze problems are using facts,
data, and logic in a full contextual setting.
> I've toyed with the idea of a gun in the house but just haven't done
> the legwork on it.
Given some of the things you have said, and your tendency to the
irrational you likely are better off (for now) eschewing the firearm.
That's just my opinion and it is base on only knowing you indirectly.
It's not that I don't believe you COULD learn to be safe and
responsible,, but rather that this is going to require some significant
effort your part.
> Got a pretty good alarm system and I do cosider
> myself very aware when I go out.
Good. That is probably THE most important thing when outside
the home to improve your odds of avoiding or surviving criminal
attack.
> I'm not afraid of guns by any means, but have just been avoiding it.
You SHOULD be VERY RESPECTFUL of a firearm. Fear doesn't
help but careful attention to ALWAYS follow the safety rules is
essential.
That way if you screw up and INADVERTENTLY violate one of
the rules you (and those around you) will likely survive the mistake.
It is nearly impossible to have an "accident" with a modern firearm.
All such "accidents" are cases of NEGLIGENCE.
Either a failure to follow (several of) the rules of safety or a conscious
decision to set them aside.
> The idea of killing someone leaves me
> cold but would certainly do it if it meant 'him/ her or me'.
A reasonable attitude if you really feel that way.
Shooting a "perp" is the NEXT to last thing any sane person
wants to do -- last is allowing them to successfully attack, kill,
rape, or seriously injure yourself or someone you love.
> I keep
> the house alarmed at all times when I'm home whether sleeping or not
> and always lock the car doors when I drive out, always put the garage
> door down before I exit the car, etc. Gun would be a last resort for
> me.
As it should be.
Do you wear your seat belt habitually? Carry a cellphone?
These are essential safety practices also.
The fact that you are conscientious about locking up and using
the alarm is a good sign for your level of responsibility and might
argue against some of the things you have written that were
irrational here.
Seriously, a lack of rationality and careful judgement is one of
the main things that should argue against you owning a firearm.
If you do decide to purchase one then PLEASE seek out
professional training in both safety and tactics so that your
investment will make you safer and not just another statistic.
Herb Martin
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:03:00 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote:
>
>>
-
>>If you do decide to purchase one then PLEASE seek out
>>professional training in both safety and tactics so that your
>>investment will make you safer and not just another statistic.
>>
>
> certainly. I'm not really a hothead as it may seem. But senseless
> killing really tests my patience level. I'm just so over it! But
> thanks for your input and presenting a bigger picture.
You are welcome.
Next time, please just tell us what you wish to address and ask
for suggestions.
We have been considering and discussing such issues for years,
reading and learning and trying to figure out what both works and
what interferes the least with human rights.
Bama Brian
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:28:31 -0500, "Herb Martin"
>
> myself very aware when I go out. I'm not afraid of guns by any means,
> but have just been avoiding it. The idea of killing someone leaves me
> cold but would certainly do it if it meant 'him/ her or me'. I keep
> the house alarmed at all times when I'm home whether sleeping or not
> and always lock the car doors when I drive out, always put the garage
> door down before I exit the car, etc. Gun would be a last resort for
> me.
>
>
>
It's always a last resort. I've even been assaulted in public, and had
a concealed gun on me - but I didn't pull it and never thought to use it
since I did not feel in fear of my life.
But if the assault had continued, or if he had used a weapon besides his
open hand on me, I'd certainly have handled things differently.
Bama Brian
That is the question, isn't it? How does one stop the shootings without
a total ban on firearms throughout the U.S.? Such a ban would have to
include police, highway patrol, the 100,000 or US fed employees who are
armed, the National Guard, and US Army and so on. Otherwise guns will
be stolen from, or sold by, corrupt cops/fed employees/soldiers.
Even with a total ban, guns will be imported wholesale from offshore -
just as is done today by the Yakuza gangsters in Japan, and the Yardies
in England.
And then there are the handy Americans with their own, small machine
shops who can build most anything. Do you remember the days of the zip
guns built by gang members here in the US? I can build a single-shot
shotgun with two pieces of pipe, a pipe cap, and a nail.
There's nothing new or difficult about home-brew firearms. For example,
in Afghanistan there's a complete cottage industry where the artisans
build pistol and AK-47 copies from scratch, using nothing but a few hand
tools and much patience. These folks don't even have electricity!
If banning something worked, we'd not have liquor sales today in the
U.S. - and the War On (Some) Drugs would have been won long ago.
But if you want no school shootings, here are a few ideas:
No more psychotropic drugs to calm students.
No violence shown on TV or the movies or the video games.
Abolition of welfare.
Legalization of drugs, and sales confined to "drug stores".
A uniform culture throughout the US; No more ethnic diversity.
Limitations on immigration, both legal and illegal.
And so on.
It's not a simple problem - and the answers will be quite complex - or
even impossible to administer in a free country.
Herb Martin
>>It's always a last resort. I've even been assaulted in public, and had
>>a concealed gun on me - but I didn't pull it and never thought to use it
>>since I did not feel in fear of my life.
> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy eyed
> and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road about a
> half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop parked nearby
> monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we went to court and
> it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen. They put him away
> for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was not very attentive and
> kept looking around to see if anyone else was about. I think now if I
> had a gun on me at the time, I would have killed him.
WHY would you have killed him?
Seriously. Were you in fear of your life? Was there a point where
you MIGHT have shot him, AND you would have felt it the SAFEST
course of action due to your fear of your life?
If not, then likely you should NOT have done so -- and the key here
is that YOU would have had the choice which you did not have since
you were unarmed.
Also note, that even had you SHOT him there is no guarantee that
he would have died -- you should NOT "shoot to kill" anyway, but
rather SHOOT TO STOP THE ATTACK, or to MAKE THE
THREAT GO AWAY.
NOTHING requires you to use a firearm just because you have it.
Judgement and maturity should be used to decide a) when it is legally
justified b) is morally correct (you have to live with it) and c) when
it is the BEST or ONLY course of action to protect you or your loved
ones.
> he was 17.
Irrelevant.
> Even though justified, it's hard to live with taking a life.
Good. It SHOULD be hard to do -- it is hard to do for everyone
except the sociopath and psychopath.
> Guess that's why I've been touchy about guns.
Why? What does you IMAGINED scenario (even if this thing
happened exactly as described, you didn't have a gun, you didn't
shoot him, and he didn't die) cause you to be "touchy"?
This makes no sense to use an imagined scenario -- one that only
MIGHT have happened had many things been different to drive
your current emotions.
It is far more likely that you suffered some form of PTSD and
are still not over that rather than that your worries for what "might
have been" are the issue.
And if you would not shoot such a violent criminal to protect your
own life you probably should NOT carry a firearm.
Just like the guy who would shoot at the slightest provocation
when such is not justified (legally or ethically).
Carrying a firearm is a very large responsibility. If you are not
mature enough or psychologically stable enough do not do it.
Note this is not the same as saying, "Kevin should be prohibited
by law from having a gun".
This is advice for YOU to think through very carefully before
wasting your money AND more importantly screwing up your
life if you are not up to the task.
Go shoot some if you think this is a possibility (i.e., owning a
firearm) -- rent a gun at the range. (Most gun shop ranges and
some other ranges have rentals.)
Take a course in gun safety and basic shooting. 2-4 hour to one
day courses are pretty easy to find. Evenings or weekends.
Then take ANOTHER course in tactical shooting. Most instructors
will have a couple of firearms for rental or loan for those taking
their courses.
If you are married, take your wife/partner to the basic course IF she is
curious too.
Even if your spouse never shoots again, there is a need to be able to
safely move the firearm or know how what is safe behavior and what
is dangerous.
What city do you live in?
Herb Martin
"Bama Brian" <eddy...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iZGdnb8ggcL0q6vV...@earthlink.com...
> Kevin O'Connell wrote:
>>> More than one school shooting has been cut short by an armed teacher.
>>> And in another college shooting, the shooter was stopped by an armed
>>> student.
>>
>>
>> But why should it have to come to that?
>
> That is the question, isn't it? How does one stop the shootings without
> a total ban on firearms throughout the U.S.? Such a ban would have to
> include police, highway patrol, the 100,000 or US fed employees who are
> armed, the National Guard, and US Army and so on. Otherwise guns will
> be stolen from, or sold by, corrupt cops/fed employees/soldiers.
>
> Even with a total ban, guns will be imported wholesale from offshore -
> just as is done today by the Yakuza gangsters in Japan, and the Yardies
> in England.
>
> And then there are the handy Americans with their own, small machine
> shops who can build most anything. Do you remember the days of the zip
> guns built by gang members here in the US? I can build a single-shot
> shotgun with two pieces of pipe, a pipe cap, and a nail.
>
> There's nothing new or difficult about home-brew firearms. For example,
> in Afghanistan there's a complete cottage industry where the artisans
> build pistol and AK-47 copies from scratch, using nothing but a few hand
> tools and much patience. These folks don't even have electricity!
>
> If banning something worked, we'd not have liquor sales today in the
> U.S. - and the War On (Some) Drugs would have been won long ago.
Nor prostitution, nor gambling, nor murder, nor robbery, nor rape,
nor pretty much any bad behavior in public.
> But if you want no school shootings, here are a few ideas:
> No more psychotropic drugs to calm students.
> No violence shown on TV or the movies or the video games.
Hurrah!
> Abolition of welfare.
Hurrah!
> Legalization of drugs, and sales confined to "drug stores".
Hurrah!
> A uniform culture throughout the US; No more ethnic diversity.
> Limitations on immigration, both legal and illegal.
Hurrah!
Illegal aliens would be deported or jailed if deportion failed.
Legal aliens would pass background checks and other qualifications
for education, etc.
We cannot let EVERYONE in so we should let in those who will
contribute the most -- higher education, having a bank account to
stake themselves, good references etc.
Heck, let immigrants pay a $5000 fee for application -- people
would gladly stand in line to fork over the money if they knew
their application would be received in a timely manner.
Herb Martin
> I guess sometimes we have to just accept the bad with the good.
> Nothing comes without a price and sometimes the price is high.
Sometimes we must tolerate hardship and situations that are less
than optimal, but we do NOT have to accept such things without
complaint or more importantly without working to improve the
situation if the issues are important.
How can we reduce violent crime?
Best evidence that involves "gun control" is by:
REMOVING gun control laws that hinder the law-abiding,
rather than creating them.
ENFORCING those laws that target criminals
PROSECUTING and keeping locked up those that commit
violent crimes
Other ideas that would SERIOUSLY reduce violent crime are
to legalize drugs and put the criminal gangs out of this business.
We are financing the on the job training of violent criminal
offenders and we are NOT stopping anyone who wishes to
use drugs from using them. At the same time, we are making
the public TOLERANT of crime and criminals -- since any
drug user is a criminal by definition and must associate with
criminal dealers and distributors to get high.
Herb Martin
>>>>It's always a last resort. I've even been assaulted in public, and had
>>>>a concealed gun on me - but I didn't pull it and never thought to use it
>>>>since I did not feel in fear of my life.
>>
>>
>>> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy eyed
>>> and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road about a
>>> half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop parked nearby
>>> monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we went to court and
>>> it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen. They put him away
>>> for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was not very attentive and
>>> kept looking around to see if anyone else was about. I think now if I
>>> had a gun on me at the time, I would have killed him.
>>
>>WHY would you have killed him?
>>
>>Seriously. Were you in fear of your life? Was there a point where
>>you MIGHT have shot him, AND you would have felt it the SAFEST
>>course of action due to your fear of your life?
>
> Absolutely! He was glassy-eyed and irrational with a revolver pointed
> right at me. The car door was open and he just jumped inside and ran
> with it. A short distance.
Did you believe your life to be in serious danger? Do you honestly
think that had you been armed you might have shot him?
If the answer to both of these is yes, then you would likely have
been justified in shooting and had he died it would have been NO
ONE'S FAULT but HIS OWN.
Had he not otherwise have been arrested (as long as you do what if)
he might easily have killed someone else and it might even be argued
that you would have had an ETHICAL DUTY to stop his violent
criminal career before some innocent person was harmed.
>>If not, then likely you should NOT have done so -- and the key here
>>is that YOU would have had the choice which you did not have since
>>you were unarmed.
>>
>>Also note, that even had you SHOT him there is no guarantee that
>>he would have died -- you should NOT "shoot to kill" anyway, but
>>rather SHOOT TO STOP THE ATTACK, or to MAKE THE
>>THREAT GO AWAY.
>>
>>NOTHING requires you to use a firearm just because you have it.
>
> I know, but he was 2 feet in front of me and high as a kite.
Then that would have been a CHOICE not a compulsion for you.
>>Judgement and maturity should be used to decide a) when it is legally
>>justified b) is morally correct (you have to live with it) and c) when
>>it is the BEST or ONLY course of action to protect you or your loved
>>ones.
>>> Even though justified, it's hard to live with taking a life.
>>
>>Good. It SHOULD be hard to do -- it is hard to do for everyone
>>except the sociopath and psychopath.
>>
>>> Guess that's why I've been touchy about guns.
>>
>>Why? What does you IMAGINED scenario (even if this thing
>>happened exactly as described, you didn't have a gun, you didn't
>>shoot him, and he didn't die) cause you to be "touchy"?
>>
>>This makes no sense to use an imagined scenario -- one that only
>>MIGHT have happened had many things been different to drive
>>your current emotions.
>
> This certainly was not imagined!
Your being armed and shooting him dead is ENTIRELY imagined
according to your story.
You were not armed; you did not shoot; he did not died. These
are all in your imagination.
We could as easily imagine him shooting you and you dying; or
his going down the street and hitting a child instead of just running
your (stolen) car off the road harmlessly.
What if 3-4 kids had been playing there? Or more likely, he had
run a red light and killed a family or just the mother and father
leaving the kids as orphans, or the opposite....
>>It is far more likely that you suffered some form of PTSD and
>>are still not over that rather than that your worries for what "might
>>have been" are the issue.
>>
>>And if you would not shoot such a violent criminal to protect your
>>own life you probably should NOT carry a firearm.
>
> But that's the thing, I probably would have. There were opportunities
> as he kept looking away.
Ok. So what?
>>Go shoot some if you think this is a possibility (i.e., owning a
>>firearm) -- rent a gun at the range. (Most gun shop ranges and
>>some other ranges have rentals.)
>>
>>Take a course in gun safety and basic shooting. 2-4 hour to one
>>day courses are pretty easy to find. Evenings or weekends.
>>
>>Then take ANOTHER course in tactical shooting. Most instructors
>>will have a couple of firearms for rental or loan for those taking
>>their courses.
>>
>>If you are married, take your wife/partner to the basic course IF she is
>>curious too.
>>
>>Even if your spouse never shoots again, there is a need to be able to
>>safely move the firearm or know how what is safe behavior and what
>>is dangerous.
>>
>>What city do you live in?
>
> I'm in Los Angeles now. The incident with the kid happened in Ft.
> Lauderdale years ago.
I was more interested in now since that affects the laws in your
area and the availability of training.
LA likely has great training opportunities and Nevada is not far
away either.
Are you married? Kids? How many?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:4835a3b9$0$5114$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:dh9Zj.1102$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >
> >
> > --
> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> > custody of such child]
>
> The above is WRONG but the following might be an in principle
> correction that works:
>
> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to be
> considered fairly for custody of such child]
Guess again. Perhaps the following analogy will help you to better
understand: Anyone that's good enough to make a car payment is good enough
to have the car.
>
>
Herb Martin
Wrong -- children deserve competent care, but having children
is a responsbility and incurs financial obligations whether you
are competent or not.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:28:31 -0500, "Herb Martin"
> Perhaps. Guess there's always 2 ways to look at things.
>
> I've toyed with the idea of a gun in the house but just haven't done
> the legwork on it. Got a pretty good alarm system and I do cosider
> myself very aware when I go out. I'm not afraid of guns by any means,
> but have just been avoiding it. The idea of killing someone leaves me
> cold but would certainly do it if it meant 'him/ her or me'.
That's the same way most of us feel. We would add family members as I am
sure that you would also.
I keep
> the house alarmed at all times when I'm home whether sleeping or not
> and always lock the car doors when I drive out, always put the garage
> door down before I exit the car, etc. Gun would be a last resort for
> me.
Again, same for most of us.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:48:01 -0400, Bama Brian
> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy eyed
> and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road about a
> half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop parked nearby
> monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we went to court and
> it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen. They put him away
> for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was not very attentive and
> kept looking around to see if anyone else was about. I think now if I
> had a gun on meat the time, I would have killed him.
Why? Did he physically threaten you with the gun or just show it? Did
he threaten to kill you or just ask for your keys (albeit in a strange
way)? Using a gun against another (actually, any type of deadly force)
is only legal when you (as a reasonable person) or an innocent third
party are in fear of *immediate* loss of life or serious bodily harm.
That is called the "reasonable man theory" and must be articulated
(preferable by an attorney) to the level of the system required. That
could be the police, a prosecutor, a judge, a jury, etc.. Failure to do
that usually results in a long time on Bubba's dance card up in Stony
Lonesome.
he was 17. Even
> though justified, it's hard to live with taking a life.
Yes. Would you think that, perhaps, the right time to use the gun is when
you are in such a dire situation that all those thoughts and platitudes
go right out the window and the only thing you can think of is stopping
that attack by *any* means necessary.
Guess that's
> why I've been touchy about guns.
With most of us, good sense has kept us from yanking out the old iron for
less severe situations than the "reasonable man" would endure. It is a
*last* resort, but statistically, a favorable one.
Herb Martin
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA779F0...@216.196.97.136...
>> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy eyed
>> and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road about a
>> half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop parked nearby
>> monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we went to court and
>> it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen. They put him away
>> for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was not very attentive and
>> kept looking around to see if anyone else was about. I think now if I
>> had a gun on meat the time, I would have killed him.
>
> Why? Did he physically threaten you with the gun or just show it? Did
> he threaten to kill you or just ask for your keys (albeit in a strange
> way)? Using a gun against another (actually, any type of deadly force)
> is only legal when you (as a reasonable person) or an innocent third
> party are in fear of *immediate* loss of life or serious bodily harm.
First, that isn't strictly true in many states -- but the story as he
originally
told it would justify deadly force in just about any jurisdiction (exept
maybe the British nanny state). Even before the "Castle Law" there
were other reasons that could work in Texas including to stop serious
felonies under some conditions.*
He was being held at gun point for the purpose of Grand Theft Auto
so shooting WHILE the kid was pointing the gun would have been
easy to defend LEGALLY (if the facts were as stated and could
be demonstrated).
> That is called the "reasonable man theory" and must be articulated
> (preferable by an attorney) to the level of the system required. That
> could be the police, a prosecutor, a judge, a jury, etc.. Failure to do
> that usually results in a long time on Bubba's dance card up in Stony
> Lonesome.
Kevin's issue seemed to be more about "fear of himself" or "having to
live with a (justifiable) killing", or that it was a "17 year old" which
really
should be irrelevant as a youth can pull the trigger and kill you as easily
as an old man can.
*Or my personal favorite for ambiguous laws:
"To prevent mischief during the night".
<Really>
Herb Martin
>>Why? Did he physically threaten you with the gun or just show it? Did
>>he threaten to kill you or just ask for your keys (albeit in a strange
>>way)? Using a gun against another (actually, any type of deadly force)
>>is only legal when you (as a reasonable person) or an innocent third
>>party are in fear of *immediate* loss of life or serious bodily harm.
>>That is called the "reasonable man theory" and must be articulated
>>(preferable by an attorney) to the level of the system required. That
>>could be the police, a prosecutor, a judge, a jury, etc.. Failure to do
>>that usually results in a long time on Bubba's dance card up in Stony
>>Lonesome.
>>
>
> It was pointed right at me and he kept saying "I'll kill you, give me
> your car....."
So for tactical consideration (not criticism of something that didn't
even occur during this incident since you were NOT armed):
Pretend you had been armed. Legally (or otherwise, since you
live in LA) carrying concealed, covered by your clothing.
HOW and WHERE would you carry a firearm so that you might
have drawn it and used it in the moments (not seconds) when he
was "not looking"?
Seriously.
Oh, and without getting SHOT preferably.
It's possible but it takes planning, judgement, practice, ability,
timing, and a little bit of "martial sense" even if you don't go
all "high karate".
And a little bit of magicians' slight of hand may be one of your
best additional techniques.
Don't forget the correct "patter" either. There is definitely a
LOT of skill and planning to even this.
Topp@Work
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:58:17 -0400, "Topp@Work"
> <topp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tony_The_Tiger" <Tony_Th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:637434ld7aaur9hiq...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:21:04 GMT, "_ G O D _" <DEM...@TELUS.NET>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Gee imagine that. We have a gun problem in the U.S.
> >
> >Ban STUN guns, huh...
> >I see you didn't even read the post.....
> >
> >CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
> >Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
> >
>
> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
Trucks (and eventually cars) were originally designed to transport Soldiers
into battle without the need for horses...
So they were primarily Military weapons....
Topp@Work
> >CARS kill more people a year than guns in the US.....
> >Go ban them first....You have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to own cars
> >
>
> Some people shouldn't own cars. Only thing is, cars are designed for
> transportation while guns are designed only to kill.
Knives on the other hand, were designed to kill ....
Yet yer not banning them, unlike England and Ireland....
Topp@Work
> >What if the student was trying to set off a bomb? The twits at Columbine
> >were but they couldn't get them to go off. Their plan was for several
> >propane bombs to go off killing many more students than did die. They
> >then were going to roam through the school and shoot anyone they saw
> >surviving the bombs.
>
>
> It's always good when scum like that kill themselves. Saves the
> taxpayers a lot of $
Thanks for agreeing that when I off a perp, you're tax dollars are saved
because I AM ARMED.
Topp@Work
> The more I read of you, the more sense you make. It's true our system
> does not keep the criminals out of circulation well enough. The good
> example as you mentioned, the Philly cop killers. Totally
> inexcusable. We all do have rights and even criminals have rights up
> to a point I think, but where to draw the line? I think someone loses
> their rights when they do stuff like this. We don't keep them locked
> away and this is a problem and one of the downsides to our free
> society. It's a tough nut.
Exactly....
Things in the US swing like a pendulum...
We went from Hangings in public, to Executions behind closed doors
(Criminals didn't WANT to go back to Prison)...
Now we are afraid to execute, or even punish criminals for their crimes...
They get more benefits than I do, and they are in prison on my dime...Why?
Because liberals think criminals feelings might be hurt if we make them wish
they never did the crime they did...Instead, we cater to them with cable tv,
weights, free education....
Soon enough, the majority of people in the US will get away from this
political correctness crap, and realize a criminal is a criminal, not a mis
understood person who is that way because of their environment.....
Topp@Work
> He made a statement once that it
> was too bad he couldn't bring his gun to the office. I asked why he
> wanted to and he replied, "well, you just never know....."
Exactly. Firemen go Grocery shopping in their truck and fire gear, "cause
you never know".
In all my life (almost 40) I have pulled my side arm 2 times....
Once, just taking the weapon (in it's holster) and putting it on my belt,
saved a bad scene from happening...
The other time, Aiming and pulling back the hammer stopped a girl from
getting beaten in the street....
"Cause you never know"
Topp@Work
> Gun would be a last resort for
> me.
And that is YOUR choice to make for YOU, under the constitution.....
Firearms are my 2nd resort.....And that is MY choice for ME.....
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AA779F0...@216.196.97.136...
>
>>> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy
>>> eyed and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road
>>> about a half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop
>>> parked nearby monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we
>>> went to court and it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen.
>>> They put him away for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was
>>> not very attentive and kept looking around to see if anyone else was
>>> about. I think now if I had a gun on meat the time, I would have
>>> killed him.
>>
>> Why? Did he physically threaten you with the gun or just show it?
>> Did he threaten to kill you or just ask for your keys (albeit in a
>> strange way)? Using a gun against another (actually, any type of
>> deadly force) is only legal when you (as a reasonable person) or an
>> innocent third party are in fear of *immediate* loss of life or
>> serious bodily harm.
>
> First, that isn't strictly true in many states --
I mentioned it because the "reasonable man" is legal in all 50 states
that I am aware of. Yes, some like Texas add some other reasons for
deadly force. Arizona does also like to prevent rape, child molestation,
sexual molestation, some burglaries and arson of an occupied dwelling.
Not all states recognize the same "other" reasons, but, AKAIK all
recognize "reasonable man" even California.
but the story as he
> originally
> told it would justify deadly force in just about any jurisdiction
> (exept maybe the British nanny state).
Yep.
Even before the "Castle Law"
> there were other reasons that could work in Texas including to stop
> serious felonies under some conditions.*
>
> He was being held at gun point for the purpose of Grand Theft Auto
> so shooting WHILE the kid was pointing the gun would have been
> easy to defend LEGALLY (if the facts were as stated and could
> be demonstrated).
>
>> That is called the "reasonable man theory" and must be articulated
>> (preferable by an attorney) to the level of the system required.
>> That could be the police, a prosecutor, a judge, a jury, etc..
>> Failure to do that usually results in a long time on Bubba's dance
>> card up in Stony Lonesome.
>
> Kevin's issue seemed to be more about "fear of himself" or "having to
> live with a (justifiable) killing", or that it was a "17 year old"
Yes.
> which really
> should be irrelevant as a youth can pull the trigger and kill you as
> easily as an old man can.
Exactly.
> *Or my personal favorite for ambiguous laws:
>
> "To prevent mischief during the night".
>
> <Really>
I kinda like the paraphrase of the gun laws in Vermont. "Here it is,
son, don't hurt nobody with it unless they really have it coming."
RD (The Sandman)
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:59:13 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> It was pointed right at me and he kept saying "I'll kill you, give me
> your car....."
If you were in reasonable fear for your life, you would have been
justified in the use of deadly force. As Herb noted, a young person can
pull a trigger and end your life just as effectively as an old one could.
Herb Martin
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA793A1...@216.196.97.136...>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AA779F0...@216.196.97.136...
>>
>>>> Many moons ago I was acosted by a kid with a gun. He was glassy
>>>> eyed and quite out of it. He stole my car and ran it off the road
>>>> about a half mile away and as luck would have it there was a cop
>>>> parked nearby monitoring traffic speed. He busted the kid and we
>>>> went to court and it seems he had a history and the gun was stolen.
>>>> They put him away for 14 yrs. I think about that often. He was
>>>> not very attentive and kept looking around to see if anyone else was
>>>> about. I think now if I had a gun on meat the time, I would have
>>>> killed him.
>>>
>>> Why? Did he physically threaten you with the gun or just show it?
>>> Did he threaten to kill you or just ask for your keys (albeit in a
>>> strange way)? Using a gun against another (actually, any type of
>>> deadly force) is only legal when you (as a reasonable person) or an
>>> innocent third party are in fear of *immediate* loss of life or
>>> serious bodily harm.
>>
>
> I mentioned it because the "reasonable man" is legal in all 50 states
> that I am aware of. Yes, some like Texas add some other reasons for
> deadly force. Arizona does also like to prevent rape, child molestation,
> sexual molestation, some burglaries and arson of an occupied dwelling.
> Not all states recognize the same "other" reasons, but, AKAIK all
> recognize "reasonable man" even California.
Is there any state that would not allow shooting to prevent a
violent rape?
There are a few that will QUESTION shooting a burglar who
enters your occupied residence, but Castle Doctrine's pass
easily in most states simply because a) most people presume
this is already legal and b) juries like to acquit most places if
the prosecutor is crazy enough to file on a home owner who
was merely stopping a burglar.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:48370820$0$3380$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:VwDZj.2130$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >
> >
> > --
> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> > custody of such child]
> >
> > .
> > .
> > "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> > news:4835a3b9$0$5114$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >>
> >> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dh9Zj.1102$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> >> > custody of such child]
> >>
> >> The above is WRONG but the following might be an in principle
> >> correction that works:
> >>
> >> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to be
> >> considered fairly for custody of such child]
> >
> > Guess again. Perhaps the following analogy will help you to better
> > understand: Anyone that's good enough to make a car payment is good
enough
> > to have the car.
>
> Wrong -- children deserve competent care,
How'd they do that?
> but having children
> is a responsbility and incurs financial obligations whether you
> are competent or not.
Uhuh. And guess what else: Along with the responsibility of paying for the
care of a child comes the RIGHT to have custody of the child. Or are you one
who subscribes to the idea of responsibilities WITHOUT rights?
>
>
Herb Martin
I am for protecting children.
You don't get them because you pay for them; you pay for them
because you helped get them.
teachrmama
But Herb, the vast majority of parents are competent. And optimally,
children are better off having both a mother and a father in parenting roles
in their lives. If parents choose to have separate households, then 50/50
joint custody would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both
parents. Sure it might be inconvenient for the parents--but since they are
the ones who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not
on the child. Having one parent be the caretaker and the other be the
wallet is not healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
Herb Martin
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g184r...@news5.newsguy.com...
That's fine and I have no reason not to agree -- and therefore by
my reading it will work out just fine for them.
I have never believed that "one parent" was genetically more
gifted for custody (and I have quite a bit of experience in the
matter although perhaps not what you might predict.)
> And optimally, children are better off having both a mother and a father
> in parenting roles in their lives.
Agreed. (As long as we presume your first point.)
> If parents choose to have separate households, then 50/50 joint custody
> would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both parents.
In many cases this is best -- whatever is best for the children,
truly best for THAT KID, given all the evidence, and starting
without preconceptions if both parents are present and functional.
> Sure it might be inconvenient for the parents--but since they are the ones
> who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not on the
> child.
The key is the KID. Each kid, as individually as it is possible for the
parents -- with the direction of the courts if the parents don't agree --
to make it.
> Having one parent be the caretaker and the other be the wallet is not
> healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
Not a problem in the world with this logic.
My complaint was that financial support somehow would buy --
or in and of itself justify -- custody.
It does not.
But it should be part of the total consideration.
I was raised (literally) to believe that the Court has the responsibility
to worry about the CHILD first and foremost, and the parents
rights and wishes after that.
It's wonderful when everyone, both parents and the kid (and even
other relatives) agree. When they don't, the Court has a PRIMARY
responsibility to the kid.
Phil
Doesn't it make you wonder why C$ money is not accountable at all if the
contention that the court's responsibility is to the child? Shouldn't
the court be concerned with what happens to the money taken by force
from one parent and given to the other, ostensibly for the child?
Phil #3
Herb Martin
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:CPOdnb9EzMzduKXV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
>> news:g184r...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>>
>> my reading it will work out just fine for them.
>>
>> I have never believed that "one parent" was genetically more
>> gifted for custody (and I have quite a bit of experience in the
>> matter although perhaps not what you might predict.)
>>
>>> in parenting roles in their lives.
>>
>>
>>> would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both parents.
>>
>> truly best for THAT KID, given all the evidence, and starting
>> without preconceptions if both parents are present and functional.
>>
>>> ones who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not
>>> on the child.
>>
>> parents -- with the direction of the courts if the parents don't agree --
>> to make it.
>>
>>> healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>
>> My complaint was that financial support somehow would buy --
>> or in and of itself justify -- custody.
>>
>> It does not.
>>
>> But it should be part of the total consideration.
>>
>> I was raised (literally) to believe that the Court has the responsibility
>> to worry about the CHILD first and foremost, and the parents
>> rights and wishes after that.
>>
>> It's wonderful when everyone, both parents and the kid (and even
>> other relatives) agree. When they don't, the Court has a PRIMARY
>> responsibility to the kid.
>
> Doesn't it make you wonder why C$ money is not accountable at all if the
> contention that the court's responsibility is to the child? Shouldn't the
> court be concerned with what happens to the money taken by force from one
> parent and given to the other, ostensibly for the child?
Yes, as long as we say, "given to the child OR for the child care and
welfare".
Absolutely.
If a custodial parent is spending it on drugs, his/her own clothes,
someone else, gambling etc instead of the kids that is wrong.
Bama Brian
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:59:13 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> your car....."
Kevin, I was just thinking about the laws in your part of the world.
If you do decide to get a gun, please be very careful with carrying it.
IIRC, in Los Angeles there's no way you can get a CCW license as an
Ordinary Decent Citizen. The only CCW's issued in that area go to the
politically well connected, the wealthy, the movie stars, or to LEO's
and security guards.
You can transport a gun in your car to and from the range, so long as
the gun is unloaded and out of your - or any passenger's - personal reach.
One other point. You must also ensure that even in your house, your
minor child must not be able to get to your gun.
Still, firearm ownership is not yet illegal. Just be sure you know what
the laws are in your home area.
Sadly, CA has become a socialist "victim disarmament" state, where only
the elite can protect themselves from the criminals who don't worry
about the laws.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian