On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:51:53 -0400, Goomba wrote:

> 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.

but there are a *lot* of people who attempt suicide once and never do so
again. they decide that losing their wife, girlfriend or job really isn't
the end of the world after all.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:24:37 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:11 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:
>>
>>> boulanger wrote:
>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>> Not everybody needs to be armed. Everybody needs the opportunity to be
>>> armed. (there's a difference) Only enough ppl need to be armed to keep
>>> the criminals guessing.
>>>
>>
>> come on. you think this guy was rational? do you think he was thinking,
>> 'ha ha, those poor unarmed dummies. i'll just go in there and shoot a
>> bunch of random people and i'll be having a beer in the corner bar ten
>> minutes later'?
>>
>> most of these people end up shooting themselves afterwards. they're not
>> going to be 'deterred' by your citizen-soldiers.
>>
>> blake
>
> He may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.

so then how does your ' Only enough ppl need to be armed to keep
the criminals guessing' apply? it will deter the suicidal murderers who
are sane?

blake

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?

most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
(ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
available is going to help that.

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:34:06 -0600, Omelet wrote:

> 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>

yep, you read about crazy anti-gun people going nuts and killing thirteen
people with a buggy whip all the time.

how did you like your buddy in pittsburgh who killed three cops because he
was afraid barack the muslin was going to take his guns?

blake

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:16:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "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.

this is just silly. how many convenience stores are robbed at knife point?
let's see some stats.

blake

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:05:09 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:41:27 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:00 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:02 -0600, Omelet >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> That's total BS.
>>
>>i've already seen one wingnut blame the incident on the obama
>>administration.
>>
> They showed their hand too soon. Everything was Obama's fault two
> full weeks before he took office.

for some of these yo-yos it was even before the election.

your pal,
blake

blake wrote on Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:18:47 GMT:

>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:41:27 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:00 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:02 -0600, Omelet >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That's total BS.
>>>
>>> i've already seen one wingnut blame the incident on the
>>> obama administration.
>>>
>> They showed their hand too soon. Everything was Obama's
>> fault two full weeks before he took office.

> for some of these yo-yos it was even before the election.

Where is Dubya hiding out? I've seen very little mention of him in the
last month.
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:23:38 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

>Where is Dubya hiding out? I've seen very little mention of him in the
>last month.

Back home letting Laura make all the decisions.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

blake murphy wrote:

> but there are a *lot* of people who attempt suicide once and never do so
> again. they decide that losing their wife, girlfriend or job really isn't
> the end of the world after all.
>
> your pal,
> blake

True, and gawd bless 'em and good luck, but sadly many are actually
repeaters who just can't get it right. Another sad statistic is that
once someone knows someone who has committed suicide, their own risk of
suicide go up. I would have thunk that seeing your family torn up over
such a thing would be a deterrent yet maybe they see it is the
"standard" way out?
It is sad on so many levels.

blake murphy wrote:
> 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

Just out of curiosity why is it that blue kool-aid drinkers are so
amazingly hypersensitive that anyone who disagrees should be silenced?

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:34:06 -0600, Omelet wrote:
>
>> 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>
>
> yep, you read about crazy anti-gun people going nuts and killing thirteen
> people with a buggy whip all the time.

You seem to forget how effective that peace loving group were on 9/11
with just some everyday box cutters. The implements aren't the problem.

>
> how did you like your buddy in pittsburgh who killed three cops because he
> was afraid barack the muslin was going to take his guns?

Are you trying to claim that anyone who is not anti gun is unstable?


>
> blake
>

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:02 -0600, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That's total BS.
>
>
Pretty factual actually. I live in PA and do not have a criminal record,
have never committed a crime, passed background checks, have a concealed
weapons permit and have completed multiple training courses. NY (and NJ)
have extremely draconian gun laws and have no reciprocity that honors my
permit so I can't even drive through NY (or NJ) with a disassembled gun
in multiple pieces in lock boxes. So they prevent me from having a gun
but obviously didn't do much for someone who is not concerned about
braking laws. In addition if I had been at that location there is
absolutely nothing I could have done.

blake murphy wrote:


> how did you like your buddy in pittsburgh who killed three cops because he
> was afraid barack the muslin was going to take his guns?


!!!!!!!

I thought I was the only one paranoid about cheap cotton fabric! I keep
it around because you don't want to waste your good fabric on the first
draft of a new pattern but you'd better believe I keep that muslin
bundled up, crated and locked in the storage room at night.

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:05:09 -0700, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:41:27 GMT, blake murphy
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:18:00 -0700, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:02 -0600, Omelet >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>> That's total BS.
> >>
> >>i've already seen one wingnut blame the incident on the obama
> >>administration.
> >>
> > They showed their hand too soon. Everything was Obama's fault two
> > full weeks before he took office.
>
> for some of these yo-yos it was even before the election.
>


Hey, just to be fair here, you said the same thing about the Shrub, he's yer
Boogieman...


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

James wrote:

> Where is Dubya hiding out? I've seen very little mention of him
> in the last month.

Jay Leno mentioned him recently: "When former President Bush was asked how
he felt about General Motors, he said, 'Ever since I left office, I don't
follow the war in Iraq that closely any more.'"

Bob

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:16:45 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:
>
>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.
>

A law enforcement official observed that;
85% of the crimes are committed by the same 15% of the people.

Over a lifetime, these repeat offenders
will leave a stream of countless victims.

Solution;
Identify the "repeaters", Hand out 10 year sentences,
pay Russia a buck-a-day to house them in a gulag.
( it'll even solve our jail overcrowding problem )

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.

All the recent shootings (including all the high-profile cop
killings) have all been staged by the Obama administration to build
support for his gun ban.

-sw

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> 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

It was meant as humor Blake dear. ;-)
--
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 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

If one obeys one of the cardinal rules of gun safety, that's not going
to happen.

"Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it".

Always.

I'd NEVER shoot at a shadow.
--
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 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

A valid point, unfortunately. :-(
--
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 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

There actually is one town in Texas where there is a local ordinance
that all households must be armed.

Lowest crime rate in the nation.

And you did not answer my question. ;-)
--
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 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

Question with suicides tho', will the lack of having a firearm handy
stop them from trying?
--
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 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?
>
> most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
> (ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
> available is going to help that.
>
> blake

And I don't see how passing more gun regulations are going to stop
criminals from getting them. The black market is FAR too big:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuv8...eature=related

I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
myself. It really is that simple.
--
Peace! Om

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

Omelet wrote:

> I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
> myself. It really is that simple.

Does not appear to be a problem for the rest of the CIVILISED world
where there is no fixation on right to bear arms

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> There actually is one town in Texas where there is a local ordinance
> that all households must be armed.
>
> Lowest crime rate in the nation.
>
Urban legend?

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
>> (ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
>> available is going to help that.
>>
>> blake
>
> And I don't see how passing more gun regulations are going to stop
> criminals from getting them. The black market is FAR too big:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuv8...eature=related
>
> I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
> myself. It really is that simple.
> --
And what happens when you go off your rocker?

Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> Question with suicides tho', will the lack of having a firearm handy
> stop them from trying?

Not if they're serious about offing themself. There are plenty of
things found in the average medicine cabinet that will do the job when
consumed in large enough quantities.

But it's a lot harder to take anybody else with you without a gun. Off
hand, I can't remember a single murder/suicide involving a Costco-sized
bottle of tylenol.

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

> Omelet wrote:
>
> > I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
> > myself. It really is that simple.
>
> Does not appear to be a problem for the rest of the CIVILISED world
> where there is no fixation on right to bear arms

Oh really? :-)

Tell me another tale Mr. Grimm...
--
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:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > There actually is one town in Texas where there is a local ordinance
> > that all households must be armed.
> >
> > Lowest crime rate in the nation.
> >
> Urban legend?

No.
--
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:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
> >> (ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
> >> available is going to help that.
> >>
> >> blake
> >
> > And I don't see how passing more gun regulations are going to stop
> > criminals from getting them. The black market is FAR too big:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuv8...eature=related
> >
> > I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
> > myself. It really is that simple.
> > --
> And what happens when you go off your rocker?

Unlikely. I've passed my background checks with flying colors every
time.

And I'm female.
--
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 >,
> "boulanger" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > blake murphy > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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?
>> >>
>> >> most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
>> >> (ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
>> >> available is going to help that.
>> >>
>> >> blake
>> >
>> > And I don't see how passing more gun regulations are going to stop
>> > criminals from getting them. The black market is FAR too big:
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuv8...eature=related
>> >
>> > I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
>> > myself. It really is that simple.
>> > --
>> And what happens when you go off your rocker?
>
> Unlikely. I've passed my background checks with flying colors every
> time.
>
> And I'm female.
> --
And that makes a difference? Hell hath no fury............

In article >,
Kathleen > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> > Question with suicides tho', will the lack of having a firearm handy
> > stop them from trying?
>
> Not if they're serious about offing themself. There are plenty of
> things found in the average medicine cabinet that will do the job when
> consumed in large enough quantities.
>
> But it's a lot harder to take anybody else with you without a gun. Off
> hand, I can't remember a single murder/suicide involving a Costco-sized
> bottle of tylenol.

But there have been plenty of stabbings.
I know that my chef's knife could certainly do a number on someone if I
was so inclined!

Fortunately, it's only used to chop up dead veggies and animals.
--
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 >,
> "boulanger" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > In article >,
>> > blake murphy > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >
>> > There actually is one town in Texas where there is a local ordinance
>> > that all households must be armed.
>> >
>> > Lowest crime rate in the nation.
>> >
>> Urban legend?
>
> No.
> --
Must be a VERY small place where everyone is related!

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "phil..c" > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
>>> myself. It really is that simple.
>> Does not appear to be a problem for the rest of the CIVILISED world
>> where there is no fixation on right to bear arms
>
> Oh really? :-)
>
> Tell me another tale Mr. Grimm...
Why ,so you can continue to ignore the facts


Carry on ,as though you know what your doing.

In article >,
"boulanger" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > "boulanger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> >> news > >> > In article >,
> >> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> most of these crazy ****ers aren't criminals, they're completely sane
> >> >> (ostensibly) people who snap. i don't see how making guns even more
> >> >> available is going to help that.
> >> >>
> >> >> blake
> >> >
> >> > And I don't see how passing more gun regulations are going to stop
> >> > criminals from getting them. The black market is FAR too big:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbuv8...eature=related
> >> >
> >> > I, for one, would like to at least be allowed to be able to defend
> >> > myself. It really is that simple.
> >> > --
> >> And what happens when you go off your rocker?
> >
> > Unlikely. I've passed my background checks with flying colors every
> > time.
> >
> > And I'm female.
> > --
> And that makes a difference? Hell hath no fury............

I have yet to read of a female homicidal maniac offing a large number of
people with a gun.
--
Peace! Om

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

Kathleen wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> Question with suicides tho', will the lack of having a firearm handy
>> stop them from trying?
>
> Not if they're serious about offing themself. There are plenty of
> things found in the average medicine cabinet that will do the job when
> consumed in large enough quantities.


Or the very popular and hard to prove auto accident. Did someone crash
into a wall because they wanted too?

>
> But it's a lot harder to take anybody else with you without a gun. Off
> hand, I can't remember a single murder/suicide involving a Costco-sized
> bottle of tylenol.
>
Unfortunately not hard at all. Just consider the peace loving muslims
who simply strap on a bomb and walk into a crowd. Or bring their handy
dandy $0.75 box cutter, slice up a few folks and crash the plane into a
building.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Kathleen > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Question with suicides tho', will the lack of having a firearm handy
>>> stop them from trying?
>> Not if they're serious about offing themself. There are plenty of
>> things found in the average medicine cabinet that will do the job when
>> consumed in large enough quantities.
>>
>> But it's a lot harder to take anybody else with you without a gun. Off
>> hand, I can't remember a single murder/suicide involving a Costco-sized
>> bottle of tylenol.
>
> But there have been plenty of stabbings.
> I know that my chef's knife could certainly do a number on someone if I
> was so inclined!
>
> Fortunately, it's only used to chop up dead veggies and animals.

Anyone with combat training knows one of the most difficult things to do
is to defend against someone who knows how to use a knife. If you are
within 20 feet and have no defense you are likely toast.

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> If one obeys one of the cardinal rules of gun safety, that's not going
> to happen.
>
> "Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it".
>
> Always.
>
> I'd NEVER shoot at a shadow.
>
That's what ALL gun toters say... but talk ain't the same as doing.
Licenced gun toters are those who have shooting accidents... criminals have
no accidents, they shoot you on purpose.

Anyway, the argument is moot... since ALL shooting incidents were
preventable there is no such thing as a gun accident (gun accident, an
oxymoron if there ever was one)... ALL shooting is on purpose.

On 2009-04-06, brooklyn1 > wrote:

> That's what ALL gun toters say... but talk ain't the same as doing.
> Licenced gun toters are those who have shooting accidents... criminals have
> no accidents, they shoot you on purpose.

Dumbest thing I've read, today.

> Anyway, the argument is moot... since ALL shooting incidents were
> preventable there is no such thing as a gun accident (gun accident, an
> oxymoron if there ever was one)... ALL shooting is on purpose.

2nd dumbest thing I've read, today.

nb

boulanger wrote:
> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>> There actually is one town in Texas where there is a local ordinance
>> that all households must be armed.
>>
>> Lowest crime rate in the nation.
>>
> Urban legend?
>


Kennesaw, Georgia. I don't know of any towns in Texas, but who knows.

Bob