In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
> to start shooting people for no reason?
>
> blake

My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> > Cops are notoriously bad shots. <g>
>
> obviously, the well-armed citizenry will be much better.
>
> blake

Would you like me to post my targets?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:


> > What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
>
> gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
>
> blake

And you will stop criminals from getting guns... how exactly?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> > If having a lot of armed citizens prepared to hand out street justice,
> > crime rates in the US, especially homicide, should be lower that here.
> > They aren't. They are way higher.
>
> to say nothing of suicide. someone gets drunk and depressed and eats a gun
> barrel.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Blake, I work in Health care. We see suicide attempts every single
night! It's part of working the night shift. (The average workups are 1
to 3 per night with more on weekends).

Any idea how many of those attempts involve guns?

I've seen only THREE in 22 years on my watch.

The VAST majority of suicide attempts involve over the counter or
prescription drugs. How about we outlaw them?

Or outlaw weekends?

Also, with few exceptions, most of them have a high blood alcohol level.
Let's outlaw alcohol hm?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:00:30 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "phil..c" > wrote:
> >
> >> Disagree have a look at Canada and other countries where there is not
> >> the fallacy and bizarre love affair with weapons.
> >
> > So, what would be your solution to stopping massacres by crazies?
> >
> > States where there are strict gun laws don't seem to stop it...
>
> here's a clue: there's no stopping crazy people. it might be a good idea
> to keep efficient killing machines out of their hands, though. let them
> bite people to death.
>
> blake

And how do you proposed to do THAT by passing more laws when, by
definition, criminals do not obey laws?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>
>> blake
>
> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>

But this guy was probably LAW ABIDING before this incident!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:47:50 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:00:30 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "phil..c" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Disagree have a look at Canada and other countries where there is
>>> >> not
>>> >> the fallacy and bizarre love affair with weapons.
>>> >
>>> > So, what would be your solution to stopping massacres by crazies?
>>> >
>>> > States where there are strict gun laws don't seem to stop it...
>>>
>>> here's a clue: there's no stopping crazy people. it might be a good
>>> idea
>>> to keep efficient killing machines out of their hands, though. let them
>>> bite people to death.
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>>And how do you proposed to do THAT by passing more laws when, by
>>definition, criminals do not obey laws?
>
> These people were not criminals until they lost it and pulled out
> their gun to solve a problem. The majority of people who are killed
> by gunshot are killed with a legal weapon bought by someone they know.
>
>
There's NO point arguing with a gun lover! They're mad, totally mad....and
that's frightening!

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>
>> blake
>
> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>

I wonder how often "law abiding citizens" turn into killers
at someone's flip of a
middle finger or being cut off in traffic?

gloria p

On Sat 04 Apr 2009 11:28:40a, Puester told us...

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy
enough
>>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
>> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>>
>
> I wonder how often "law abiding citizens" turn into killers
> at someone's flip of a
> middle finger or being cut off in traffic?
>
> gloria p
>

Actually, I've always wished for a button on my dashboard that would
obliterate the stupid car and driver in front of me. No gun involved. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright

"One man's meat is another man's poison"
- Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> here's a clue: there's no stopping crazy people. it might be a good idea
> to keep efficient killing machines out of their hands, though. let them
> bite people to death.
>
> blake

You're right, but how do you do that? Certainly not by making laws. There
are laws against robbing convenience stores too, but it still happens and
often without guns.

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:58:02 -0600, Omelet wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> >,
> >> maxine > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Apr 3, 3:36 pm, Omelet > wrote:
> >>>> In article >,
> >>>>
> >>>> "Dimitri" > wrote:
> >>>>> :-(
> >>>>> 13 Dead in New York Shooting
> >>>>> BINGHAMTON, NY (AP) -- A gunman entered an immigration services center
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> downtown Binghamton on Friday, killing 13 and injuring others.
> >>>>> Dimitri
> >>>> This is why the victims needed to be ARMED. The ability to shoot back
> >>>> may have minimized the number of victims.
> >>>>
> >>>> New York has draconian anti-gun laws and as you can see, those don't
> >>>> stop criminals that don't obey laws.
> >>> In a situation like that, the best you could hope for would be someone
> >>> quick enough to take out the gunman before he ran out of ammo. But
> >>> the other six folks who pull out their piece and miss the gunman may
> >>> end up hitting some other innocents.
> >> That's always the worry of those that don't agree with this concept.
> >>
> >>> We will have to agree to disagree on this topic, Om. Where food is
> >>> concerned, caring for relatives, or health, we can find more common
> >>> ground.
> >>>
> >>> Maxine
> >> It's all good. :-) I'm not a militant pro-RKBA'er.
> >> We can agree to disagree!
> >>
> >> What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
> >
> > gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
> >
> > blake
>
>
> You mean like in Mexico?

<laughs>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article >,
"boulanger" > wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:47:50 -0600, Omelet >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> blake murphy > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:00:30 -0600, Omelet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > In article >,
> >>> > "phil..c" > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Disagree have a look at Canada and other countries where there is
> >>> >> not
> >>> >> the fallacy and bizarre love affair with weapons.
> >>> >
> >>> > So, what would be your solution to stopping massacres by crazies?
> >>> >
> >>> > States where there are strict gun laws don't seem to stop it...
> >>>
> >>> here's a clue: there's no stopping crazy people. it might be a good
> >>> idea
> >>> to keep efficient killing machines out of their hands, though. let them
> >>> bite people to death.
> >>>
> >>> blake
> >>
> >>And how do you proposed to do THAT by passing more laws when, by
> >>definition, criminals do not obey laws?
> >
> > These people were not criminals until they lost it and pulled out
> > their gun to solve a problem. The majority of people who are killed
> > by gunshot are killed with a legal weapon bought by someone they know.
> >
> >
> There's NO point arguing with a gun lover! They're mad, totally mad....and
> that's frightening!

Mm babe, that concept works both ways. <g>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

In article 7>,
Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> On Sat 04 Apr 2009 11:28:40a, Puester told us...
>
> > Omelet wrote:
> >> In article >, blake murphy
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy
> enough
> >>> to start shooting people for no reason?
> >>>
> >>> blake
> >>
> >> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
> >> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
> >>
> >
> > I wonder how often "law abiding citizens" turn into killers
> > at someone's flip of a
> > middle finger or being cut off in traffic?
> >
> > gloria p
> >
>
> Actually, I've always wished for a button on my dashboard that would
> obliterate the stupid car and driver in front of me. No gun involved. :-)

Flamethrower!!!
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:58:42 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> maxine wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 3:36 pm, Omelet > wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>> 13 Dead in New York Shooting
>>>>>> BINGHAMTON, NY (AP) -- A gunman entered an immigration services center in
>>>>>> downtown Binghamton on Friday, killing 13 and injuring others.
>>>>>> Dimitri
>>>>> This is why the victims needed to be ARMED. The ability to shoot back
>>>>> may have minimized the number of victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> New York has draconian anti-gun laws and as you can see, those don't
>>>>> stop criminals that don't obey laws.
>>>> In a situation like that, the best you could hope for would be someone
>>>> quick enough to take out the gunman before he ran out of ammo. But
>>>> the other six folks who pull out their piece and miss the gunman may
>>>> end up hitting some other innocents.
>>>>
>>>> We will have to agree to disagree on this topic, Om. Where food is
>>>> concerned, caring for relatives, or health, we can find more common
>>>> ground.
>>> I am reminded of an incident in the news a few years back about a guy
>>> who went into a bar to pull off an armed robbery. He picked the wrong
>>> bar. This one was full of off duty cops. A bunch of the cops pulled out
>>> their guns and started shooting. The robber was shot and killed before
>>> he got a shot off. ... and 5 or 6 of the cops were hit by friendly <?>
>>> fire.
>> Cops are notoriously bad shots. <g>
>
> obviously, the well-armed citizenry will be much better.
>
> blake

In many cases yes. I am not a super shot but I place twice as good as an
FBI agent needs to in order to pass their internal training. I took the
same training course they receive. There are lots of sensible folks who
carry and are denied that ability when in the PRofNY or PRofNJ in my
case. And women tend to be better shots than men. I know many women
(family members included) who are cool headed but could easily dispatch
a riff-raff such as in this thread if necessary. But the PRofNY says
they can't carry a weapon to defend themselves or others.

blake murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:53:35 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>> If having a lot of armed citizens prepared to hand out street justice,
>> crime rates in the US, especially homicide, should be lower that here.
>> They aren't. They are way higher.
>
> to say nothing of suicide. someone gets drunk and depressed and eats a gun
> barrel.
>
> your pal,
> blake

....and as often as not they botch that up too.. NOW they're still alive
but REALLY have something to be depressed about. <sigh>
I can't count the number of suicidal people we've saved so they can try
again another day.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> If having a lot of armed citizens prepared to hand out street justice,
>>> crime rates in the US, especially homicide, should be lower that here.
>>> They aren't. They are way higher.
>> to say nothing of suicide. someone gets drunk and depressed and eats a gun
>> barrel.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Blake, I work in Health care. We see suicide attempts every single
> night! It's part of working the night shift. (The average workups are 1
> to 3 per night with more on weekends).
>
> Any idea how many of those attempts involve guns?
>
> I've seen only THREE in 22 years on my watch.
>
> The VAST majority of suicide attempts involve over the counter or
> prescription drugs. How about we outlaw them?
>
> Or outlaw weekends?
>
> Also, with few exceptions, most of them have a high blood alcohol level.
> Let's outlaw alcohol hm?

I do trauma. Drug overdoses aren't traumas but considered "medicine"
patients so I rarely have to take care of them but I question your
numbers of 1-3 suicide attempts every night. I work at a 600 bed
hospital and we don't get that many in every night. Frequently, YES! But
not *that* frequently. And in the small regional hospital you work would
more likely be the drug overdoses because the traumas would have been
sent to the trauma centers.
Guns+ETOH is a bad combination.
The common profile for drug overdose seems to be overweight, unhappy,
middle aged women who often have psych issues with some meds (that xanax
cocktail washed down with 30 Tylenol) and they repeatedly take overdoses
and then call for help. It is sad and they're probably full of self
loathing and pain, but don't know how to get help or attention in other
ways. From my observations, women rarely try to shoot themselves. They
don't want to mess up the package, I guess? Men aren't afraid of
hurting themselves by stepping out in front of 18 wheelers or shooting
themselves, but women don't seem to want to feel it.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Goomba > wrote:

>> I do trauma. Drug overdoses aren't traumas but considered "medicine"
>> patients so I rarely have to take care of them but I question your
>> numbers of 1-3 suicide attempts every night. I work at a 600 bed
>> hospital and we don't get that many in every night. Frequently, YES! But
>> not *that* frequently. And in the small regional hospital you work would
>> more likely be the drug overdoses because the traumas would have been
>> sent to the trauma centers.
>> Guns+ETOH is a bad combination.
>> The common profile for drug overdose seems to be overweight, unhappy,
>> middle aged women who often have psych issues with some meds (that xanax
>> cocktail washed down with 30 Tylenol) and they repeatedly take overdoses
>> and then call for help. It is sad and they're probably full of self
>> loathing and pain, but don't know how to get help or attention in other
>> ways. From my observations, women rarely try to shoot themselves. They
>> don't want to mess up the package, I guess? Men aren't afraid of
>> hurting themselves by stepping out in front of 18 wheelers or shooting
>> themselves, but women don't seem to want to feel it.
>
> I go by the "toxic ingestion" workups out of the ER. There is a set
> panel of tests for them.

That would also cover "ruling out" then too. We sen labs down to
determine everything and anything that might be on board. Say grandma
comes in with an altered mental status- they can draw those labs to help
determine the cause, and the cause might be urosepsis or stroke or one
of a zillion other issues. That you run that lab doesn't necessarily
mean they've all tried to off themselves.

In article >,
Goomba > wrote:

> > Blake, I work in Health care. We see suicide attempts every single
> > night! It's part of working the night shift. (The average workups are 1
> > to 3 per night with more on weekends).
> >
> > Any idea how many of those attempts involve guns?
> >
> > I've seen only THREE in 22 years on my watch.
> >
> > The VAST majority of suicide attempts involve over the counter or
> > prescription drugs. How about we outlaw them?
> >
> > Or outlaw weekends?
> >
> > Also, with few exceptions, most of them have a high blood alcohol level.
> > Let's outlaw alcohol hm?
>
> I do trauma. Drug overdoses aren't traumas but considered "medicine"
> patients so I rarely have to take care of them but I question your
> numbers of 1-3 suicide attempts every night. I work at a 600 bed
> hospital and we don't get that many in every night. Frequently, YES! But
> not *that* frequently. And in the small regional hospital you work would
> more likely be the drug overdoses because the traumas would have been
> sent to the trauma centers.
> Guns+ETOH is a bad combination.
> The common profile for drug overdose seems to be overweight, unhappy,
> middle aged women who often have psych issues with some meds (that xanax
> cocktail washed down with 30 Tylenol) and they repeatedly take overdoses
> and then call for help. It is sad and they're probably full of self
> loathing and pain, but don't know how to get help or attention in other
> ways. From my observations, women rarely try to shoot themselves. They
> don't want to mess up the package, I guess? Men aren't afraid of
> hurting themselves by stepping out in front of 18 wheelers or shooting
> themselves, but women don't seem to want to feel it.

I go by the "toxic ingestion" workups out of the ER. There is a set
panel of tests for them.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

zxcvbob > wrote in news:73p8cjF1037r3U1
@mid.individual.net:

>
>
> That was my point.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
> handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
> (but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
> Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
> victims possibly being able to fight back.
>
> Bob

I don't know about England or Canada but in my experience, even before the
Port Arthur massacre and stricter gun laws, gun ownership was not the big
thing here that it seems to be in the US. There weren't a bunch of armed
people walking the streets or lots of people with a gun in the bedroom.
Certainly the only people I knew with guns were farmers with shotties and
rifles on the property to eliminate pests and the odd guy who went pig (or
other creature) hunting on weekends. I doubt criminals were expecting
victims to be armed.

And I'd have to look at what the crime statistics were but, the common
argument here is that those laws affect the law abiding gun owner only.
Criminals will still get guns. If that's the case, the only gun crimes
going down would be those where a law abiding person (the sort it is argued
should be able to be armed) has flipped their lid and used a gun rather
than fists or a knife, because it was there.

--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>
>> blake
>
> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

FOX news oh Jesus -wipes tears from eyes


For a while there I thought your posts were seriously advocating the
pro gun thing .
Now that you have posted a link to fox news
Just know your have to be pulling our collective leg on your purported
pro gun stance .
If on the other hand you are serious -------- put head on arms and laughs

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>
>>> What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
>> gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
>>
>> blake
>
> And you will stop criminals from getting guns... how exactly?

Bet you would love to have one of these


http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv

No need to be a crack shot eh
I can hear all the roo haaaars from over here

phil..c wrote:

> Bet you would love to have one of these
>
> http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv

Damn SKIPPY I'd like one of those!

I used to work on a similar gun in my Navy days. Awesome.

The gun was shooting blanks in the video, but with real rounds there's a bit
of a HAZMAT danger because the rounds are often made of depleted uranium. As
the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and vaporized uranium
forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as around the gunner.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> phil..c wrote:
>
>> Bet you would love to have one of these
>>
>> http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv
>
> Damn SKIPPY I'd like one of those!
>
> I used to work on a similar gun in my Navy days. Awesome.
>
> The gun was shooting blanks in the video, but with real rounds there's a
> bit of a HAZMAT danger because the rounds are often made of depleted
> uranium. As the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and
> vaporized uranium forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as
> around the gunner.
>
> Bob
There are non DU rounds about you know
AND D U IS USUALLY ONLY FOR 30 mm

Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> I used to work on a similar gun in my Navy days. Awesome.
>
> The gun was shooting blanks in the video, but with real rounds there's a
> bit of a HAZMAT danger because the rounds are often made of depleted
> uranium. As the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and
> vaporized uranium forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as
> around the gunner.

and THAT explains your special glow! ;-)

--Lin

phil..c wrote:

>>> Bet you would love to have one of these
>>>
>>> http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv
>>
>> Damn SKIPPY I'd like one of those!
>>
>> I used to work on a similar gun in my Navy days. Awesome.
>>
>> The gun was shooting blanks in the video, but with real rounds there's a
>> bit of a HAZMAT danger because the rounds are often made of depleted
>> uranium. As the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and
>> vaporized uranium forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as around
>> the gunner.
>>
> There are non DU rounds about you know

Sure there are non-DU rounds. But a badass gun ought to shoot a badass
round, n'est ce pas?


> AND D U IS USUALLY ONLY FOR 30 mm

I'd never heard that. I worked on a 20mm system which used DU rounds. The
DU rounds are a bit complicated in their construction; there's a plastic
sabot which covers the actual uranium penetrator, and there's an aluminum
"pusher" between the powder and the penetrator. The gun shown was only
7.62mm, though, and it might not be worth the trouble of making a DU round
that small.

Bob

Lin wrote:

>> As the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and
>> vaporized uranium forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as
>> around the gunner.
>
> and THAT explains your special glow! ;-)


No, Honey, YOU are the reason for my special glow!

Bob, with an anniversary coming up next Tuesday

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> phil..c wrote:
>
>>>> Bet you would love to have one of these
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv
>>>
>>> Damn SKIPPY I'd like one of those!
>>>
>>> I used to work on a similar gun in my Navy days. Awesome.
>>>
>>> The gun was shooting blanks in the video, but with real rounds there's a
>>> bit of a HAZMAT danger because the rounds are often made of depleted
>>> uranium. As the rounds leave the muzzle, there's some uranium dust and
>>> vaporized uranium forming a toxic cloud around the gun, as well as
>>> around
>>> the gunner.
>>>
>> There are non DU rounds about you know
>
> Sure there are non-DU rounds. But a badass gun ought to shoot a badass
> round, n'est ce pas?
>
>
>> AND D U IS USUALLY ONLY FOR 30 mm
>
> I'd never heard that. I worked on a 20mm system which used DU rounds. The
> DU rounds are a bit complicated in their construction; there's a plastic
> sabot which covers the actual uranium penetrator, and there's an aluminum
> "pusher" between the powder and the penetrator.

As I SAID *USUALLY* MEANS MORE 30 MM DU ROUNDS EXPENDED THAN OTHER
CALIBRES Bear in Mind MBT and AFV have du rounds rather larger E G 120
MM as used by US Abrams but not ours (we dont want the crap about )

>The gun shown was only
> 7.62mm, though, and it might not be worth the trouble of making a DU round
> that small.
EXACTLY.
>
> Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

>phil..c wrote:

>> There are non DU rounds about you know

>Sure there are non-DU rounds. But a badass gun ought to shoot a badass
>round, n'est ce pas?

There was a report that some Israeli uranium rounds, instead of being
depleted uranium, contained uranium that was slightly enriched.
Apparently they had manufactured too much of the stuff.

Steve

In article >,
"phil..c" > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
> >> gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
> >>
> >> blake
> >
> > And you will stop criminals from getting guns... how exactly?
>
> Bet you would love to have one of these
>
>
> http://www.dillonaero.com/docs/Dillo...lVehicle-1.wmv
>
> No need to be a crack shot eh
> I can hear all the roo haaaars from over here

Nah, waste of ammo. Too fast of a fire rate. ;-)
100 rounds per minute is more than enough...
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I realize that a lot of Americans feel threatened by that and resent the
> inability to use firearms to protect themselves and their properties. I
> can tell you that only a small minority of Canadians feel that way. On the
> contrary, we have a lot less fear of armed intruders. All we have to do is
> to look south and see the carnage from guns and quickly realize how much
> safer we are without them.

Now if only we could convince the Harper crowd in Parliament!
The Registry was was the right decision (in my, and many, many others'
opinion) but I still can't understand how the bureaucrats managed to spend
so much on it.

"Rhonda Anderson" > wrote in message
.5...
> zxcvbob > wrote in news:73p8cjF1037r3U1
> @mid.individual.net:

> And I'd have to look at what the crime statistics were but, the common
> argument here is that those laws affect the law abiding gun owner only.
> Criminals will still get guns.

That's the common bleat in western Canada too. The simpler statistic is
that the more firearms at large in the population, the higher the death rate
from them. Switzerland is often touted by the gun lobby as a safe place
with high gun ownership but their gun-death rate is much higher than
Canada's.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:15:46 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:11 -0500, zxcvbob >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (How about compare the per capita rate of
>>> buggy-whip crimes of the Amish vs. that of citizens of Oakland,
>>> California. What kind of conclusions could you draw from that?)
>>
>> I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges.
>>
>
> That was my point.
>
> I don't know about Canada, but in England and Australia they got rid of
> handguns and surprisingly enough crimes committed with guns went down
> (but not to zero) and other crimes went way up to fill the vacuum.
> Overall, crime went up as criminals didn't have to worry about their
> victims possibly being able to fight back.
>
> Bob

how many crimes were homocides? or robberies where people ended up dead?

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:39:13 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>
>> blake
>
> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

ah, the fabulously successful '1/2 hour news hour.' how long did that
last, about six episodes. good source.

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:28:40 -0600, Puester wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> or is your thesis that if everyone is armed, no one would be crazy enough
>>> to start shooting people for no reason?
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> My point is that if LAW ABIDING citizens had the ability to defend
>> themselves, it might give the criminals some pause:
>>
>
> I wonder how often "law abiding citizens" turn into killers
> at someone's flip of a
> middle finger or being cut off in traffic?
>
> gloria p

or shooting the wayward daughter sneaking in after an unauthorized night
out?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:41:19 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> Cops are notoriously bad shots. <g>
>>
>> obviously, the well-armed citizenry will be much better.
>>
>> blake
>
> Would you like me to post my targets?

and you are one gun owner out of how many? how many who own guns for
'protection' are regulars at the gun range?

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:24:43 -0400, George wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:58:42 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>> maxine wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 3:36 pm, Omelet > wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>>> 13 Dead in New York Shooting
>>>>>>> BINGHAMTON, NY (AP) -- A gunman entered an immigration services center in
>>>>>>> downtown Binghamton on Friday, killing 13 and injuring others.
>>>>>>> Dimitri
>>>>>> This is why the victims needed to be ARMED. The ability to shoot back
>>>>>> may have minimized the number of victims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New York has draconian anti-gun laws and as you can see, those don't
>>>>>> stop criminals that don't obey laws.
>>>>> In a situation like that, the best you could hope for would be someone
>>>>> quick enough to take out the gunman before he ran out of ammo. But
>>>>> the other six folks who pull out their piece and miss the gunman may
>>>>> end up hitting some other innocents.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will have to agree to disagree on this topic, Om. Where food is
>>>>> concerned, caring for relatives, or health, we can find more common
>>>>> ground.
>>>> I am reminded of an incident in the news a few years back about a guy
>>>> who went into a bar to pull off an armed robbery. He picked the wrong
>>>> bar. This one was full of off duty cops. A bunch of the cops pulled out
>>>> their guns and started shooting. The robber was shot and killed before
>>>> he got a shot off. ... and 5 or 6 of the cops were hit by friendly <?>
>>>> fire.
>>> Cops are notoriously bad shots. <g>
>>
>> obviously, the well-armed citizenry will be much better.
>>
>> blake
>
> In many cases yes. I am not a super shot but I place twice as good as an
> FBI agent needs to in order to pass their internal training. I took the
> same training course they receive. There are lots of sensible folks who
> carry and are denied that ability when in the PRofNY or PRofNJ in my
> case. And women tend to be better shots than men. I know many women
> (family members included) who are cool headed but could easily dispatch
> a riff-raff such as in this thread if necessary. But the PRofNY says
> they can't carry a weapon to defend themselves or others.

does PRofNY mean 'people's republic of new york'? in which case, bye-bye,
nutcase.

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:23:18 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:58:02 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> maxine > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 3:36 pm, Omelet > wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dimitri" > wrote:
>>>>>> :-(
>>>>>> 13 Dead in New York Shooting
>>>>>> BINGHAMTON, NY (AP) -- A gunman entered an immigration services center in
>>>>>> downtown Binghamton on Friday, killing 13 and injuring others.
>>>>>> Dimitri
>>>>> This is why the victims needed to be ARMED. The ability to shoot back
>>>>> may have minimized the number of victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> New York has draconian anti-gun laws and as you can see, those don't
>>>>> stop criminals that don't obey laws.
>>>> In a situation like that, the best you could hope for would be someone
>>>> quick enough to take out the gunman before he ran out of ammo. But
>>>> the other six folks who pull out their piece and miss the gunman may
>>>> end up hitting some other innocents.
>>> That's always the worry of those that don't agree with this concept.
>>>
>>>> We will have to agree to disagree on this topic, Om. Where food is
>>>> concerned, caring for relatives, or health, we can find more common
>>>> ground.
>>>>
>>>> Maxine
>>> It's all good. :-) I'm not a militant pro-RKBA'er.
>>> We can agree to disagree!
>>>
>>> What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
>>
>> gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
>>
>> blake
>
> You mean like in Mexico?

i gotta admit, not much effective gun control down there. too bad they
have to go all the way to, say, arizona, to buy all the guns they want.

now they're like beirut, somalia, or baghdad, or other bucolic places where
'an armed society is a polite society.'

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:41:59 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> What would you suggest as the solution to this problem?
>>
>> gosh, how about we only let the police and army have guns?
>>
>> blake
>
> And you will stop criminals from getting guns... how exactly?

and you will force all law-abiding citizens to carry guns...how, exactly?

blake

boulanger wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I realize that a lot of Americans feel threatened by that and resent the
>> inability to use firearms to protect themselves and their properties. I
>> can tell you that only a small minority of Canadians feel that way. On the
>> contrary, we have a lot less fear of armed intruders. All we have to do is
>> to look south and see the carnage from guns and quickly realize how much
>> safer we are without them.
>
> Now if only we could convince the Harper crowd in Parliament!
> The Registry was was the right decision (in my, and many, many others'
> opinion) but I still can't understand how the bureaucrats managed to spend
> so much on it.

Au contraire..... if only we could convince the Opposition that the long
gun registry is a waste of time and money. The number of rifles and
shotguns used in crimes is so small as to be almost a non-issue. The
major firearms problem in Canada these days is the young gang members in
Toronto and Vancouver, each involving particular ethnic groups, and
those guys are using handguns, non of which are legally acquired and
owned. Clamping down on law abiding citizens does absolutely nothing to
deal with the gangs and other criminals who seem to be able to find
handguns in the black market. However, there are already plenty of
effective gun control regulations to deal with those guys... if only the
courts would apply the penalties prescribed.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:45:25 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> If having a lot of armed citizens prepared to hand out street justice,
>>> crime rates in the US, especially homicide, should be lower that here.
>>> They aren't. They are way higher.
>>
>> to say nothing of suicide. someone gets drunk and depressed and eats a gun
>> barrel.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Blake, I work in Health care. We see suicide attempts every single
> night! It's part of working the night shift. (The average workups are 1
> to 3 per night with more on weekends).
>
> Any idea how many of those attempts involve guns?
>
> I've seen only THREE in 22 years on my watch.

how many people who blow the back of their heads completely off are rushed
to the hospital for treatment? i'm guessing the coroner is their first
stop.

>
> The VAST majority of suicide attempts involve over the counter or
> prescription drugs. How about we outlaw them?
>

<bzzzt> sorry, wrong answer:

U.S. Suicide Statistics (2005)
Suicide Methods
Method Percent of Total (32,439 suicides)

Number of Suicides

Firearms 52.1% 17,002

Hanging, strangulation, suffocation 22.2% 7,248

Poisons 17.6% 5,744

All other methods 8.1% 2,643

<http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#2005>

a larger percentage of men use a firearm, but still the percentage of women
using poison (i don't know whether presciption drugs fall into this
category or 'all other methods) is not *vastly* larger, but about ten
percent, 39.1 vs 31.0 percent.

> Or outlaw weekends?
>
> Also, with few exceptions, most of them have a high blood alcohol level.
> Let's outlaw alcohol hm?

what is the percentage of people who get drunk on the weekend who commit
suicide? of those who do, *if a gun is hand*, most will use that.
sometimes there's the added benefit of dead spouses and children, too.

blake