 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / October 2006I just can't stop.
One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of officers surrounded the school with guns drawn, while others helped to evacuate students from inside the English- language CEGEP school that has about 10,000 students. Gary Clemence, a psychology teacher, said the college is "usually a really quiet, peaceful place. No problems, no knives, anything." Today's incident is horrifyingly reminiscent of another school shooting in Montreal. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lepine shot 27 female engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14, before fatally shooting himself. Dare I say it. Hell yes. I told you so. > One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College > in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14, before fatally > shooting himself. > Dare I say it. Hell yes. I told you so. You beat me to it. I was waiting for more news, as they are unsure if there was one or three shooters, at last report. What a drag. http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q103262CD "On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lepine shot 27 female engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14, before fatally shooting himself. The mass murder prompted tighter gun laws, which included the creation of the controversial national firearms registry. It also prompted Parliament to create the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in 1991, to coincide with the anniversary of the tragedy." Good thing they have all those restrictive gun laws in place, and that Canadian society is so much less violent, better and smarter than the rednecked trailer dwelling gun huggers to their south. > Good thing they have all those restrictive gun laws in place, and that > Canadian society is so much less violent, better and smarter than the > rednecked trailer dwelling gun huggers to their south. Speaking of which, if we make it down this weekend, any chance of blowing some sh.t up? The Kid has never fired any type of firearm before, and expressed interest in becoming a cop. She thinks exploding stuff sounds like an interesting idea. I'll sport for the ammo. > > Good thing they have all those restrictive gun laws in place, and that > > Canadian society is so much less violent, better and smarter than the > > rednecked trailer dwelling gun huggers to their south. > Speaking of which, if we make it down this weekend, any chance of > blowing some sh.t up? The Kid has never fired any type of firearm > before, and expressed interest in becoming a cop. She thinks exploding > stuff sounds like an interesting idea. > I'll sport for the ammo. Of course. Anything to help set a kid on the right path. > Anything to help set a kid on the right path. So, you're saying that you will spring for the donuts? > Speaking of which, if we make it down this weekend, any chance of > blowing some sh.t up? The Kid has never fired any type of firearm > before, and expressed interest in becoming a cop. She thinks exploding > stuff sounds like an interesting idea. > I'll sport for the ammo. See if someone has a Barrett she can shoot. Mega cool. Lee > > Speaking of which, if we make it down this weekend, any chance of > > blowing some sh.t up? The Kid has never fired any type of firearm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See if someone has a Barrett she can shoot. Mega cool. I have an M21, and there will be several 1911's in attendance. I wont be so cruel as to let her experience the 12 gage, with 3" mag double ot... >> > Speaking of which, if we make it down this weekend, any chance of >> > blowing some sh.t up? The Kid has never fired any type of firearm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I wont be so cruel as to let her experience the 12 gage, with 3" mag double >ot... Yeah, but there's nothing quite like popping off a .50 BMG. or a .45-110 for that matter. Or, for something a little tamer, a .444 Marlin. Shot all three, once. More than enough thrill for me and a nice bruise on the should from the Marlin.  Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. The M21 isn't a bad weapon, but it's not a Barrett. One of these days, I'm going to shoot one of those things. Rumor has it that the recoil reduction system makes it a piece of cake. Lee > I have an M21, and there will be several 1911's in attendance. I've still got about 120 rounds of 7.62 waiting to be expended, too. Sweet. > I wont be so cruel as to let her experience the 12 gage, with 3" mag double > ot... Haha! She's about 120 lbs soaking wet. We could stand her up on her skateboard and see how far she rolls. > I've still got about 120 rounds of 7.62 waiting to be expended, too. > > Sweet. sh.t, I dont know anyone with any commie hardware... > > I wont be so cruel as to let her experience the 12 gage, with 3" mag double > > ot... > > Haha! She's about 120 lbs soaking wet. We could stand her up on her > skateboard and see how far she rolls. We did it to a buddy of mine's 12 year old son, and it accellerated his head out from between the ear protectors and sat him on his a.s. Ade did it, and thought it was fun until she woke up about 2 in the morning unable to lift her arm. She was black and blue from her elbow to her earlobe. I tried to warn her, but she thought it was fun. > > I've still got about 120 rounds of 7.62 waiting to be expended, too. > > > > Sweet. > > sh.t, I dont know anyone with any commie hardware... I thought the M21 fired 7.62. Not the case? > > > I've still got about 120 rounds of 7.62 waiting to be expended, too. > > > > > > Sweet. > > sh.t, I dont know anyone with any commie hardware... > I thought the M21 fired 7.62. Not the case? My mistake, I thought you were talking about the AK ammo... I had us lined up with an M21, but my bud has to work OT this weekend. I'll see what else I can come up with. > My mistake, I thought you were talking about the AK ammo... > > I had us lined up with an M21, but my bud has to work OT this weekend. > > I'll see what else I can come up with. Salright babe. What I really want is for her to get a decent introduction to firearms, gun safetey, and responsibility. We can do that popping holes in tin cans with a .22. > > My mistake, I thought you were talking about the AK ammo... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > introduction to firearms, gun safetey, and responsibility. We can do > that popping holes in tin cans with a .22. I have the perfect .22 pistol for that. Double action, inertial firing pin, etc. > I have the perfect .22 pistol for that. > > Double action, inertial firing pin, etc. Sweet. I, on the other hand, demand big bore explosions. :) > > I have the perfect .22 pistol for that. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I, on the other hand, demand big bore explosions. :) Looks like 1911's are going to have to do it for you. > Looks like 1911's are going to have to do it for you. That seemed to have worked. > One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College > in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dare I say it. Hell yes. I told you so. It's a fake. This simply isn't possible, for a number of reasons. First, it's against a variety of laws. Secondly, it happened on a campus, where guns aren't allowed. Third, we -all- know that Canadian criminals don't carry guns. I'm sure it was filmed at that place they did the moon landings. SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > It's a fake. It's not on snopes... <ducking> > This simply isn't possible, for a number of reasons. > First, it's against a variety of laws. > Secondly, it happened on a campus, where guns aren't allowed. Hard to believe, that. With swell guys like Ward Churchill (and the idiot at BYU proposing the WTC fantasy) around, you'd think there would be more murders on campus. > Third, we -all- know that Canadian criminals don't carry guns. Well, he wasn't a criminal before the shiny bangtoy took over his brain. > I'm sure it was filmed at that place they did the moon landings. I bet it was an American gun, smuggled in by the NRA. >> It's a fake. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I bet it was an American gun, smuggled in by the NRA. -Whole plot- was by the NRA, is more like it. If MTV wasn't responsible. SignaturePopeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com > -Whole plot- was by the NRA, is more like it. > > If MTV wasn't responsible. Isnt that the French-Canadian terrorist group? > One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College > in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dare I say it. Hell yes. I told you so. Of course it was going to happen again. It's not the first time, and surely won't be the last. We have our share of psychos here. You can't have them all. One question occurred to me in the meantime. Are students allowed to attend class at your US post-secondary institutions armed? The students at Columbine apparently didn't carry heat. Apparently folks who go to McDonalds don't sit down to eat armed either. It took 71 minutes for the SWAT sniper to end that San Ysidro massacre. Perhaps that's why whackos never just shoot up bars and clubs. It's safer to hit the kids, or perhaps going out unarmed isn't just a Canuck weakness. Let's see what details emerge. JF Here we go... > Of course it was going to happen again. It's not the first time, and > surely won't be the last. We have our share of psychos here. You can't > have them all. Thats not what you and mighty mouth have been saying at all. > One question occurred to me in the meantime. Are students allowed to > attend class at your US post-secondary institutions armed? Only if they want to. > The students at Columbine apparently didn't carry heat. That was a high school. You're spinning out again John. > Apparently folks who go to > McDonalds don't sit down to eat armed either. It took 71 minutes for > the SWAT sniper to end that San Ysidro massacre. Perhaps that's why > whackos never just shoot up bars and clubs. It is illegal to pack in a bar, CCL or not. > It's safer to hit the kids, > or perhaps going out unarmed isn't just a Canuck weakness. Let's see > what details emerge. Right on cue. And self contradictory and wrong as ever. >> One question occurred to me in the meantime. Are students allowed to >> attend class at your US post-secondary institutions armed? > > Only if they want to. Probably not. For instance, the University of Washington is covered by WAC 478-120-020 which holds that: (3) Specific instances of misconduct include, but are not limited to: . . . (f) Possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals or other dangerous weapons or instrumentalities on the University campus, except for authorized University purposes, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the Vice President for Student Affairs, or any other person designated by the President of the University. I wonder how often they give written approval. Or the University of Puget Sound: "Possession or use of firearms or other weapons on campus, except by law-enforcement officials, is strictly prohibited." http://www2.ups.edu/security/report_details2004.html Or Seattle University: "Listed below are some of the types of behavior and conduct the University considers inappropriate. . . . (10) Having firearms or weapons on University property or while on University business" Or Western Washington University: WAC 516-23-380 Explosives and weapons prohibited from campus. Possession or use of firearms, other weapons or explosives on campus is a violation of the code, unless authorized by the university. Explosives, dangerous chemicals, and fireworks are prohibited on campus or on property supervised by the university or at university-sponsored activities, unless authorized by the university. Students may not possess firearms on campus at any time, other than to secure them with the police. Weapons include, but are not limited to: (1) Firearms of any sort; (2) Look-alike weapons; (3) BB, pellet, and paintball guns; (4) Swords, knives (other than small closed-blade, three and one-half inch pocket knives or smaller or kitchen utensils); (5) Martial art weapons; (6) Projectile devices; i.e., catapult or slingshot; and (7) Objects used as a weapon to distress or injure another. See WAC 516-52-020 Firearms and dangerous weapons. Which college did you say you went to that allowed firearms on campus? > Which college did you say you went to that allowed firearms on campus? I went to Stetson University in Deland, Florida. Weapons were not banned from the campus at the time. During my time there, I had both a .22 rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun in my dorm room. Things are probably different now. Lee > >> One question occurred to me in the meantime. Are students allowed to > >> attend class at your US post-secondary institutions armed? > > Only if they want to. <snip> > Which college did you say you went to that allowed firearms on campus? Every single one I set foot on, as long as no one knows I have it. Rather get caught with it when I dont need it, than without it when I do. But of course, the a.shole that shot up all the people at the college in Canada obeyed all the laws, and the laws protected all the people he shot. >> Apparently folks who go to >> McDonalds don't sit down to eat armed either. It took 71 minutes for >> the SWAT sniper to end that San Ysidro massacre. Perhaps that's why >> whackos never just shoot up bars and clubs. > >It is illegal to pack in a bar, CCL or not. Not in Minnesota. I can go into any bar with a gun. Assuming, of course, that they don't post against it. I just can't have a BAC over .04%. >>It is illegal to pack in a bar, CCL or not. > Not in Minnesota. I can go into any bar with a gun. Assuming, of > course, that they don't post against it. I just can't have a BAC over > .04%. It is here in Florida, but is not illegal in a restaurant that serves liquor. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Lee >>>Apparently folks who go to >>>McDonalds don't sit down to eat armed either. It took 71 minutes for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > course, that they don't post against it. I just can't have a BAC over > .04%. .04 is the legal limit ( driving ) or just to carry >>>>Apparently folks who go to >>>>McDonalds don't sit down to eat armed either. It took 71 minutes for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >.04 is the legal limit ( driving ) or just to carry To carry. It was lowered from .10 and the driving limit was also lowered from .10 to .08. The .04 limit is the one used for pilots, bus drivers, truckers and such. > Here we go... > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > And self contradictory and wrong as ever. never constrained by facts logic or truth. a true sales person. a lot like a lawyer. >> One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College >> in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Dare I say it. Hell yes. I told you so. <snip> While someone died from the shootings, Lee was snickering and beating his chest telling us "I told you so." A class act all the way. --- Mike from Ottawa > While someone died from the shootings, Lee was snickering and beating > his chest telling us "I told you so." A class act all the way. f.ck you and the horse that rode you in. >>>One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College >>>in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > --- > Mike from Ottawa you'd rather continue to hide your head in the sand??? Did he hurt your *FEELINGS* ? Signature“TANSTAAFL” “All I can say is there had better be some cheese at the end of this maze……” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > you'd rather continue to hide your head in the sand??? Yep, except his head isnt in the sand, it is up his a.s. > Did he hurt your *FEELINGS* ? One can only hope, after all the sh.t he has slung. >>> One suspected gunman is dead in a chaotic shooting scene at Dawson College >>> in downtown Montreal that has left up to 13 victims in hospital. A number of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > While someone died from the shootings, Lee was snickering and beating > his chest telling us "I told you so." A class act all the way. like you would understand "class Act" if it bit you. > --- > Mike from Ottawa > Of course it was going to happen again. It's not the first time, and > surely won't be the last. We have our share of psychos here. > You can't have them all. > One question occurred to me in the meantime. Are students allowed to > attend class at your US post-secondary institutions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unarmed isn't just a Canuck weakness. Let's see > what details emerge. Guns in schools are not legal in Florida. I'm not sure what the rules are for faculty. Guns in McDonalds are legal for those who have a permit. Southern California, however, is not as gun friendly. You'll have to ask Greg what the rules are there. Guns are not legal in bars in Florida either. The point of posting the article was not to support the concept of an armed society directly. I have my doubts, but maybe your country can find an answer that does not include weapons, that is not a cure worse than the disease. The purpose was to emphasize the point that I made before. The frequency of violence in your country is increasing. Your police know it, your politicians know it and your citizens know it. It's going to keep on increasing until something is done. Simple as that. We've been where you are now. We watched violence increase in our own country until it got intolerable. We tried to deal with it by restricting access to firearms too. It didn't work, here or anywhere else. The pendulum here has swung in the other direction. Instead of trying to stop the criminals, something no government has ever managed, we're now working on ensuring our citizens have the right to can stop the crime. It's not perfect, but it's working. I suspect your country will follow the same path. I doubt you'll learn from our example any more than we learned from those that went before. It's a shame, but it seems that only experience teaches the value of self defense. We had to learn the hard way, it looks like you will have to also. Good luck. I hope the next one, or two, or more, to suffer aren't your friends or family . . . or you. The odds are in your favor, but they were in the favor of the 14 who were shot at Dawson and the 27 that were shot at Ecole Polytechnique. Luck ran out for them, as it always does for someone. Lee > > Of course it was going to happen again. It's not the first time, and > > surely won't be the last. We have our share of psychos here. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > shame, but it seems that only experience teaches the value of self defense. > We had to learn the hard way, it looks like you will have to also. Probably the psychopaths and sociopaths will learn from it though. When everyone in your country and mine is well-armed, will they just kick it up a notch and use explosives, or airborne toxins, or whatever is the most lethal killing tool du jour. Then will you start to carry grenades, or a gas canister? At some point does everyone carry a suitcase bomb with a deadman trigger so nobody gets away with anything, and damn the consequences? >Good luck. I hope the next one, or two, or more, to suffer aren't your friends > or family . . . or you. The odds are in your favor, but they were in the > favor of the 14 who were shot at Dawson and the 27 that were shot at Ecole > Polytechnique. Luck ran out for them, as it always does for someone. I learned a few years ago that no amount of care and control can guarantee the safety of me and my family, and it gets proven over and over to the world every day. Despite that I still believe my cup is half full. You didn't win anything here. We all lost just one more time. JF > Probably the psychopaths and sociopaths will learn from it though. It is imperative that they do. That's the source of the success of the concealed weapons laws in the United States. The primary goal is a reduction in violent deaths. Making sure that, if someone has to die, is only desirable when the primary goal can't be achieved. > When everyone in your country and mine is well-armed, will they just kick > it > up a notch and use explosives, or airborne toxins, or whatever is the > most lethal killing tool du jour. I don't think so. I have trouble imagining someone doing a car jacking with bombs or poisons. I suppose it's possible. Do you really think it's likely or are you simply clutching at straws to try and avoid admitting what you know is right? >>Good luck. I hope the next one, or two, or more, to suffer aren't your >>friends >> or family . . . or you. The odds are in your favor, but they were in the >> favor of the 14 who were shot at Dawson and the 27 that were shot at >> Ecole >> Polytechnique. Luck ran out for them, as it always does for someone. > I learned a few years ago that no amount of care and control can > guarantee the safety of me and my family, and it gets proven over and > over to the world every day. Despite that I still believe my cup is > half full. May it stay that way. Your point is mine. Glad you agree. No amount of care and control can guarantee anyone's safety. The Boy Scout Motto is "Be Prepared." It's as true today as it was when they pinned the Eagle badge on my uniform. Lee > > Probably the psychopaths and sociopaths will learn from it though. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or are you simply clutching at straws to try and avoid admitting what you > know is right? Who had the first gun - good guys or bad guys? Please tell me you aren't really naive enough to believe that when the good guys are all armed just like the bad guys, the bad guys won't go looking for an advantage. What's the best choice to top a gun? You know they'll have it. Then the good guys will have to crank it up a notch, and so on and so on. It's called escalation, a no-win situation. > >>Good luck. I hope the next one, or two, or more, to suffer aren't your > >>friends [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Prepared." It's as true today as it was when they pinned the Eagle badge on > my uniform. I don't remember a gun being standard issue for Boy Scouts, at least not in my day. JF > > > Probably the psychopaths and sociopaths will learn from it though. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it. Then the good guys will have to crank it up a notch, and so on and > so on. It's called escalation, a no-win situation. The crooks won't be as ast when they're towing 155 mm howitzers. They wouldt have time to unlimber, load, and aim before I'd shoot 'em. And I'm pretty sure my SUV can outrun a tank. And Grumann (now F22 Raptor) will fly regular CAP (Crook Air Patrols). See? No problem at all. > > >>Good luck. I hope the next one, or two, or more, to suffer aren't your > > >>friends [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't remember a gun being standard issue for Boy Scouts, at least > not in my day. http://www.sfbac.org/camping/c_bs_shootingsportscamp.cfm http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss08.html Dennis > > Who had the first gun - good guys or bad guys? Please tell me you > > aren't really naive enough to believe that when the good guys are all [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > See? No problem at all. Did we answer who had the first gun yet? > http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss08.html I know. I had the marksman merit badge. Do the Boy Scouts of America wear guns when in uni? JF > > > Who had the first gun - good guys or bad guys? Please tell me you > > > aren't really naive enough to believe that when the good guys are all [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Did we answer who had the first gun yet? I suspect that answer is lost to hiistory I take it you now see the ludicrousness of your "escalation" argument as it regards crooks. > > http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss08.html > > I know. I had the marksman merit badge. Do the Boy Scouts of America > wear guns when in uni? Never made it past webelos. > JF Dennis > > Did we answer who had the first gun yet? > > I suspect that answer is lost to hiistory I found an answer and posted it here somewhere. Seems to me the first small arm weapon was used around 1430 to defend against siege. > I take it you now see the ludicrousness of your "escalation" argument as it > regards crooks. Not at all. I'm amazed you can't see the correlation. > > > http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss08.html > > > > I know. I had the marksman merit badge. Do the Boy Scouts of America > > wear guns when in uni? > > Never made it past webelos. What the hell is a webelo? JF >>>Who had the first gun - good guys or bad guys? Please tell me you >>>aren't really naive enough to believe that when the good guys are all [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > JF I did > > I know. I had the marksman merit badge. Do the Boy Scouts of America > > wear guns when in uni? > > > > JF > > > I did Seriously? JF >>>I know. I had the marksman merit badge. Do the Boy Scouts of America >>>wear guns when in uni? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > JF yes and no, tehy were drill guns for marching >> I don't think so. I have trouble imagining someone doing a car jacking >> with >> bombs or poisons. I suppose it's possible. Do you really think it's >> likely >> or are you simply clutching at straws to try and avoid admitting what you >> know is right? > Who had the first gun - good guys or bad guys? I don't know. Do you? Does that mean you're not going to answer the question? > Please tell me you aren't really naive enough to believe that when the > good guys are all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have to crank it up a notch, and so on and so on. It's called escalation, > a no-win situation. Please tell me that you aren't really naive enough to believe that they haven't already done that and that they find that being the only ones armed is a significant one. What's your solution, stop trying? Do you advocate removing all impediments to criminals simply because each one causes them to look for a new advantage or find another occupation? >> May it stay that way. Your point is mine. Glad you agree. No amount of >> care and control can guarantee anyone's safety. The Boy Scout Motto is >> "Be >> Prepared." It's as true today as it was when they pinned the Eagle badge >> on >> my uniform. > I don't remember a gun being standard issue for Boy Scouts, at least > not in my day. I can show you my marksmanship merit badge if you'd like. I still have it. Lee > >> I don't think so. I have trouble imagining someone doing a car jacking > >> with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't know. Do you? Does that mean you're not going to answer the > question? Apparently the first small arms were used to defend against a besieging army in 1430. I haven't been able to find a dependable source on when small arms were first used in the commission of a crime (assuming you agree that wars between states are not deemed to be criminal in the modern sense of the word). But the answer appears to be that the good guys had 'em first. > > Please tell me you aren't really naive enough to believe that when the > > good guys are all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > have to crank it up a notch, and so on and so on. It's called escalation, > > a no-win situation. > > I don't remember a gun being standard issue for Boy Scouts, at least > > not in my day. > > I can show you my marksmanship merit badge if you'd like. I still have it. I had one too. I have no idea where it got to, along with all my other Scout paraphernalia. I do still have my sheath knife. JF > Apparently the first small arms were used to defend against a besieging > army in 1430. I haven't been able to find a dependable source on when > small arms were first used in the commission of a crime (assuming you > agree that wars between states are not deemed to be criminal in the > modern sense of the word). But the answer appears to be that the good > guys had 'em first. OK, the good guys had them first. I don't know about you, but I figure developing them to protect yourself against someone trying to kill you is a pretty valid justification for having them. What do you think? >>> I don't remember a gun being standard issue for Boy Scouts, at least >>> not in my day. >> I can show you my marksmanship merit badge if you'd like. I still have >> it. > I had one too. I have no idea where it got to, along with all my other > Scout paraphernalia. I do still have my sheath knife. I don't. The only thing I kept is the merit badge sash. Lee >>>>I don't think so. I have trouble imagining someone doing a car jacking >>>>with [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > JF use it - japanese style! > > Probably the psychopaths and sociopaths will learn from it though. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or are you simply clutching at straws to try and avoid admitting what you > know is right? Bombs and poisons woud likely affect the perp just as badly as the victims. (yes I know you realize this) Dennis > Bombs and poisons woud likely affect the perp just as badly as the victims. > (yes I know you realize this) Not if they knew they were going to use it. The military trains it's people to use grenades effectively. Law enforcement uses tear gas. Why wouldn't the criminals figure it out too? JF >> Bombs and poisons woud likely affect the perp just as badly as the victims. >> (yes I know you realize this) > >Not if they knew they were going to use it. The military trains it's >people to use grenades effectively. Law enforcement uses tear gas. Why >wouldn't the criminals figure it out too? So how often are grenades used effectively in places like Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is rarely, if ever. Grenades are only effective in heavy cover, close quarter combat. Think Iwo Jima, the Herken Forest or the jungles of Viet Nam. Regarding tear gas, it's only real use is to drive the enemy out of an enclosed shelter. It would be extremely ineffective on the streets of America as a weapon. > >> Bombs and poisons woud likely affect the perp just as badly as the victims. > >> (yes I know you realize this) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > effective in heavy cover, close quarter combat. Think Iwo Jima, the > Herken Forest or the jungles of Viet Nam. Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. > Regarding tear gas, it's only real use is to drive the enemy out of an > enclosed shelter. It would be extremely ineffective on the streets of > America as a weapon. Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some kind. Can't be any more cumbersome than a big-assed gun. Many of these shootings take place in confined spaces - schools, McDonalds, offices, etc. JF > > >> Bombs and poisons woud likely affect the perp just as badly as the victims. > > >> (yes I know you realize this) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. Ok, we'll pass a law to make that illegal. That'll guarantee that won't happen. > > Regarding tear gas, it's only real use is to drive the enemy out of an > > enclosed shelter. It would be extremely ineffective on the streets of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > shootings take place in confined spaces - schools, McDonalds, offices, > etc. There as ther subwy incident in Japan - can you think of others where toxic or dibilitating gases were used? I'm pretty sure Japan had made it illegal to use such things. did that happen before or after the incident in question? Dennis > Ok, we'll pass a law to make that illegal. > That'll guarantee that won't happen. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm pretty sure Japan had made it illegal to use such things. did that > happen before or after the incident in question? No doubt. If only all the other passengers on the subway had have been CC their own sarin gas, it never would have happened. > > Ok, we'll pass a law to make that illegal. > > That'll guarantee that won't happen. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No doubt. If only all the other passengers on the subway had have been CC > their own sarin gas, it never would have happened. You do realize, of course, that sarin gas is rather indiscriminant? It'll affect perp & victims equally. If you conmme across someone wearing HAZMAT clothing, then it s a clue you may not want to be in the area. A pistol, rifle, etc is aimed. Affects only the person(s) in the line of fire. Had the nutjob in Canada unleased a gas, youn woiuld not only be talking about 1 dead and 19 or so injured - it'd be much higher. Dennis >> Ok, we'll pass a law to make that illegal. >> That'll guarantee that won't happen. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > No doubt. If only all the other passengers on the subway had have been CC > their own sarin gas, it never would have happened. But you would outlaw gasmasks, and ridicule anyone who suggested carrying one. > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some > kind. Can't be any more cumbersome than a big-assed gun. Many of these > shootings take place in confined spaces - schools, McDonalds, offices, > etc. We're talking normal crimes of violence and you're talking acts of terrorism. Which one do you suppose exposes you to the most risk? Lee > > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. > > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > terrorism. > Which one do you suppose exposes you to the most risk? The one closest to me at the time. Just as a point of interest, which do you rate as more heinous, "normal" crimes of violence or acts of terrorism? And if there are normal crimes of violence are there extraordinary crimes of violence? JF > > > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. > > > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > terrorism? And if there are normal crimes of violence are there > extraordinary crimes of violence? Yes. Dennis > > The one closest to me at the time. Just as a point of interest, which > > do you rate as more heinous, "normal" crimes of violence or acts of > > terrorism? And if there are normal crimes of violence are there > > extraordinary crimes of violence? > > Yes. What are the distinctions? JF > > > The one closest to me at the time. Just as a point of interest, which > > > do you rate as more heinous, "normal" crimes of violence or acts of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What are the distinctions? I'd consider Columbine an extraordinary crime of violence, along with the killing of James Byrd by dragging him behind a truck and the killing of Matthew Sheppard. Dennis > > > > The one closest to me at the time. Just as a point of interest, which > > > > do you rate as more heinous, "normal" crimes of violence or acts of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > killing of James Byrd by dragging him behind a truck and the killing of > Matthew Sheppard. Not just any murder? JF > Not just any murder? There are various levels of homicide, suicide being only one. >> Not just any murder? > > There are various levels of homicide, suicide being only one. suicide? >> the killing of James Byrd by dragging him behind a truck and the guy who committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, 6 times. > > > > > The one closest to me at the time. Just as a point of interest, which > > > > > do you rate as more heinous, "normal" crimes of violence or acts of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not just any murder? Extraordinary to the people involved, certainly. Dennis Signature__________________________________________ Then conquer we must, for our cause is just, And this be our motto -- "In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. >> > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. >> > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > JF >> We're talking normal crimes of violence and you're talking acts of >> terrorism. >> Which one do you suppose exposes you to the most risk? > The one closest to me at the time. That's four or five questions in a row you chose not to answer. Are you ever going to answer one? > Just as a point of interest, which do you rate as more heinous, "normal" > crimes of violence or acts of > terrorism? Depends on the crime. > And if there are normal crimes of violence are there extraordinary crimes > of violence? Yep. Think about it. I'll bet you can come up with quite a few. Lee > > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. > > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > terrorism. > Which one do you suppose exposes you to the most risk? I'm confused. I thought you were the one that started this thread, you know the one about abnormal violence. >> > Think crowded room, like a library. Toss one or two in and stand back. >> > Think any toxic or debilitating gas, and wear a mask or airpack of some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > know > the one about abnormal violence. No, Lee started it to highlight normal violence, that you'll be seeing more of, like we keep telling you. John obfuscated with abnormal violence, to avoid any kind of moral honesty and clarity. > No, Lee started it to highlight normal violence, that you'll be seeing > more of, like we keep telling you. In what world is that "normal violence"? > John obfuscated with abnormal violence, to avoid any kind of moral honesty > and clarity. And you believe that some deranged sociopath carrying three guns walking into a school and indiscriminately shooting students is normal? But some equally deranged unit using poison gas or a bomb to cause the same kind of tragedy is abnormal? That proves that you haven't got your head on straight about guns. It really doesn't matter how the murders are caused. The important and tragic thing is they happened. It's anything but normal in my world - yours as well and I suspect a lot of your neighbours would agree. Give your head a shake. Read my lips "There is absolutely nothing normal in any civilized country about shooting up a school classroom." I'm sure you're gonna produce cites up the yingyang to prove I'm wrong. Take your time. I'm more interested in seeing how many of the Peanut Gallery have the utter lack of common sense and decency to back you up on this lunacy. JF >> No, Lee started it to highlight normal violence, that you'll be seeing >> more of, like we keep telling you. > > In what world is that "normal violence"? Been studying school shooting statistics, have you? Didn't think so. >> John obfuscated with abnormal violence, to avoid any kind of moral >> honesty >> and clarity. > > And you believe that some deranged sociopath carrying three guns > walking into a school and indiscriminately shooting students is normal? That's not what I said. > But some equally deranged unit using poison gas or a bomb to cause the > same kind of tragedy is abnormal? That's not what I said either, but, now that you mention it, uh, yeah. That would be abnormal. > That proves that you haven't got your head on straight about guns. Only on your planet. > It really doesn't matter how the murders are caused. Sure it does, within the context of our discussions. You've repeatedly stated that gun violence isn't a problem in your country. We've repeatedly pointed it out when it is. This is the same diffuse backscatter you spewed last time we pointed out a crazed gunman in your society. This one was grandly predictable too, like we keep telling you. > The important and tragic thing is they happened. It's anything but normal > in my world So you've, uh, repeatedly stated. Repeatedly. - yours as well and I suspect a lot of > your neighbours would agree. Give your head a shake. > > Read my lips "There is absolutely nothing normal in any civilized > country about shooting up a school classroom." You're the one that needs the lip reading practice. No one stated that it was normal. > I'm sure you're gonna produce cites up the yingyang to prove I'm wrong. It would be easy. Even more ironic is the fact that school shootings are on a steady decline in this country. Which direction are they moving in your country? > Take your time. I'm > more interested in seeing how many of the Peanut Gallery have the utter > lack of common sense and decency to back you up on this lunacy. Back me up in what? Your slimy Canadian innuendo, or what I actually said? You can't fool anyone around here anymore, John, your pathetically lame act is all washed up. SignaturePopeye It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle www.finalprotectivefire.com > That's not what I said. Never is. It's the little voices in his head. > Back me up in what? > Your slimy Canadian innuendo, or what I actually said? > You can't fool anyone around here anymore, John, your pathetically lame > act is all washed up. Oh, he's just having fun. Has he called you son yet? >>> No, Lee started it to highlight normal violence, that you'll be seeing >>> more of, like we keep telling you. I wouldn't call it normal, but you're pretty much on track. It's actual violence. It's the kind of thing that goes on in this world and is on the increase wherever it's not actively resisted. My point, which John seems reluctant to recognize, is that the US went through the same stages that his country is going through now. We tried the same things his country is focusing on now, with the same results his country is experiencing now. It didn't work. Nobody has ever been able to control violence by criminals, by limiting the rights of its citizens to protect them selves with equal or superior methods. >>> John obfuscated with abnormal violence, to avoid any kind of moral >>> honesty and clarity. Not to avoid moral honesty or clarity, but because he's a sheep, not a shepherd. He's in denial and will probably continue to be until some tragedy, closer to his heart than anything that's happened before, affects him directly. Even then, he'll probably blame those who have chosen to be shepherds rather than sheep, for the crime than those who committed it or those who failed to prepare to defend against it. >> And you believe that some deranged sociopath carrying three guns walking >> into a school and indiscriminately shooting students >> is normal? It's happened in every country in the world that failed to provide its citizens with the means to defend themselves. Common, no. Normal, probably. "Deranged sociopaths happen, normally, I suppose. Some of them choose to hurt others with whatever weapon is available. Guns are one of those weapons, but not the only one. With or without guns, sociopaths will still occur and will still hurt others. With guns, citizens may sometimes defend themselves. Without them, they're just so many sheep ready for slaughter. >> It really doesn't matter how the murders are caused. Right. What matters is what options law abiding, sane citizens have for defending themselves against those who would kill them. Lee > >>> No, Lee started it to highlight normal violence, that you'll be seeing > >>> more of, like we keep telling you. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > limiting the rights of its citizens to protect them selves with equal or > superior methods. Is it remotely possible that the differences between Canada and the US will have a part in how this develops (or doesn't) here in Canada? Here we aren't already wrapped up in a gun culture like you have been for years. We don't have a huge and vocal body of support for the gun as a solution to guns. Perhaps we'll be more successful without the progun lobby working counter-productively (to anything but their own ends) to undermine civilized attempts at a solution to gun crime. Perhaps, in the end, you'll all be proven right and my country will have to arm up in the fashion you feel is necessary to our individual safety. I hope not. I just got our office to give up the pagers and go to text messaging on our phones. I plan to get a phone that has PDA capability and even a decent digital camera (which I use at work) built in. That means I only have to carry a phone instead of a phone, a PDA, a pager and a camera. Having to carry a gun would be counter productive. > >>> John obfuscated with abnormal violence, to avoid any kind of moral > >>> honesty and clarity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shepherds rather than sheep, for the crime than those who committed it or > those who failed to prepare to defend against it. > >> And you believe that some deranged sociopath carrying three guns walking > >> into a school and indiscriminately shooting students [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > defend themselves. Without them, they're just so many sheep ready for > slaughter. Here's some food for thought. You gun people have started tossing off this "sheep" thing to describe (put down would be more accurate) those who don't feel dependent on guns for safety on the streets. Is it possible that you are all just as sheepish, or maybe more so, because you have let yourselves be convinced that guns are the only way to safety and true happiness, while sheep like me are comfortable without all the defensive accoutrements? Perhaps the real shepherds are Heston and his ilk preaching rousing sermons from Mount Glock. Are you really any less sheepish than me? But take heart. If there were no followers there'd be no leaders. Is it remotely possible that this whole mystique about the gun as a personal defense item is just part of the lobbying program to protect the rights of gun owners in the States? What better way to justify the individual's right to keep and bear arms than to create a perception of need? It's how life insurance was sold for years. They've finally found more subtle and sophisticated ways of getting the use of your money, far more effective than the old "As a responsible breadwinner have you taken steps to see that your family is well provided for when (not if) that cancer strikes you down in the prime of your earning years?" They even made death by misadventure sound like winning a lottery by sell double indemnity. That's skill, making you want to gamble on dying to win. > >> It really doesn't matter how the murders are caused. > > Right. What matters is what options law abiding, sane citizens have for > defending themselves against those who would kill them. It would certainly be more meaningful to your cause if you could get the press to start covering the success stories in your society - I mean the times when an armed man or woman actually stops a crime in progress using their concealed handgun. It's beyond me why the media refuses to cover those stories. I can only think of one in recent months (gun under pillow or something like that). I'm sure if there were more they'd be cited here. JF > Perhaps, in the end, you'll all be proven right and my country will > have to arm up in the fashion you feel is necessary to our individual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a pager and a camera. Having to carry a gun would be counter > productive. We just have to wait until the Japanese develop a gun culture of their own. Then they'll invent a combo gun/PDA/phone/camera/pager that also works as a cigarette lighter and is the size of a credit card. > > Perhaps, in the end, you'll all be proven right and my country will > > have to arm up in the fashion you feel is necessary to our individual [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then they'll invent a combo gun/PDA/phone/camera/pager that also works as a > cigarette lighter and is the size of a credit card. Already done, but it was Belgian. >> Perhaps, in the end, you'll all be proven right and my country will >> have to arm up in the fashion you feel is necessary to our individual [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Then they'll invent a combo gun/PDA/phone/camera/pager that also works as a >cigarette lighter and is the size of a credit card. ...at the risk of answering the phone only to blow yer head off. And it was a telemarketer. --- Mike from Ottawa >>We just have to wait until the Japanese develop a gun culture of their >>own. >>Then they'll invent a combo gun/PDA/phone/camera/pager that also works as >>a >>cigarette lighter and is the size of a credit card. > ...at the risk of answering the phone only to blow yer head off. And > it was a telemarketer. Hell, I'd buy one for a telemarketer. Lee > >>We just have to wait until the Japanese develop a gun culture of their > >>own. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hell, I'd buy one for a telemarketer. Gimme the phone number. I'll make sure the call comes from Canada. > Is it remotely possible that the differences between Canada and the US > will have a part in how this develops (or doesn't) here in Canada? Here > we aren't already wrapped up in a gun culture like you have been for > years. Since they hit Plymouth Rock. > We don't have a huge and vocal body of support for the gun as a > solution to guns. You have a huge a vocal group who thinks taking guns away from the law abiding is a solution to gun crime, which is simply ignorant. > Perhaps we'll be more successful without the progun > lobby working counter-productively (to anything but their own ends) to > undermine civilized attempts at a solution to gun crime. More of that blanket insult and innuendo that defines your position. And, once again, you illustrate that your goal is to remove all guns, no matter how much backpeddling you do starting now. > Perhaps, in the end, you'll all be proven right and my country will > have to arm up in the fashion you feel is necessary to our individual > safety. Again, for the umpteenth time, no one is advocating that you, or anyone else who doesnt want to, arm themselves. What we are and have been saying is that you dont get to make that decision for us. Why you cant seem to get that simple fact through your thick skull is illustrative of why you have such trouble peddling your meandering pablum. > Here's some food for thought. You gun people have started tossing off > this "sheep" thing to describe (put down would be more accurate) those > who don't feel dependent on guns for safety on the streets. Soon as you start thinking, let us know. The above is another dyslexic response, combined with blanket insult, and topped off with 100% fabrication. > Is it > possible that you are all just as sheepish, or maybe more so, because > you have let yourselves be convinced that guns are the only way to > safety and true happiness, while sheep like me are comfortable without > all the defensive accoutrements? True happiness is being free to do as we chose, without some double talking, self defined allegedly intellectually superior socialite babbling as you do, attenuating our freedoms. > Perhaps the real shepherds are Heston > and his ilk preaching rousing sermons from Mount Glock. Are you really > any less sheepish than me? But take heart. If there were no followers > there'd be no leaders. Rousing sermons from Mount Glock. Thats right up there with shiny bangtoy. Anyone here besides me never listened to a word Heston has ever said outside his acting career? > It would certainly be more meaningful to your cause if you could get > the press to start covering the success stories in your society - I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > months (gun under pillow or something like that). I'm sure if there > were more they'd be cited here. All that information you ignore is easily available with a simple internet search, and we have provided cites to the relevant data to you for literally years. That you chose to remain ignorant, and lie to yourself is your problem. We have no burden of proof, we have the rights, you want to take them. So far, you haven't been able to make your case with anything other than emotional hyperbole and insult. Meanwhile truly sick people like your Canadian pal are able to overtly illustrate the impending danger by posting pictures and words in public forums, that you blissfully ignore in your fantasy grade crusade to make the world a safer place. You also seem to forget, every time, that we have the right, protected by the Constitution. Our "cause" is simply to keep lying, self-deceiving sociopaths like you from stealing hard won freedoms that we enjoy. Like Saturday when Jammer, Barbara, Jerome and his daughter Sabrina and I all went out and shot handguns for a couple hours. Who did we hurt? Why should you, or anyone else have the ability (let alone the need you show) to attenuate our freedoms? It is hand wringing old hens like you that are trying to take the right as a cure to the ills of society. How stupid is that? Most of these types of crimes are committed by people at the bottom of the social strata you so eagerly embrace and look down from, as you make yourself feel better about being better. It's the stick behind the stick, dummy. In other words, self absorbed snobs like you create an atmosphere where sick people think the way to "get even" is to commit murder or mass murder. Even if you take away the gun from law abiding citizens, you have done *nothing* to address the root causes, and the crime will continue or accelerate. While you simpletons are focused on a simple harmonic mechanism, the true root causes remain unaddressed. But it makes for good conversation at the socialist gatherings. But apparently, that's how you feel so good about yourselves and your intellectual and social superiority; By taking the easiest and most lazy way out, and blaming an inanimate object for all the ills of society. As the idiot from your Canadian version of the Brady Bunch said "He was a law abiding gun owner till he flipped." Which is really funny, because she is actually making our case. And the truth is, it may be legal in Canada to purchase firearms and ammunition with the intent to commit mass murder, here it is not. That kid was coming apart like a cheap suit, made public his intent and photographs of himself, as you all sipped wine and debated "gun control". > You also seem to forget, every time, that we have the right, protected by > the Constitution. Our "cause" is simply to keep lying, self-deceiving [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you, or anyone else have the ability (let alone the need you show) to > attenuate our freedoms? I probably aught to be flogged or something for encouraging a 17 year old girl to play with handguns. Now she's a trained killer! WHAT HAVE I DONE! WOES!!! FEAR HER!!!! > I probably aught to be flogged or something for encouraging a 17 year > old girl to play with handguns. Now she's a trained killer! WHAT > HAVE I DONE! WOES!!! > > FEAR HER!!!! She took to it like duck to water too. I bet her boyfriends will be polite... > She took to it like duck to water too. > > I bet her boyfriends will be polite... She says I still gotta dig the holes. :( > > She took to it like duck to water too. > > > > I bet her boyfriends will be polite... > > She says I still gotta dig the holes. :( That's why she has uncles. > > She took to it like duck to water too. > > > > I bet her boyfriends will be polite... > > She says I still gotta dig the holes. :( Save the sweat. Get a few of Grumman's alligators. JF > Save the sweat. Get a few of Grumman's alligators. The cold where they live puts alligators off their feed. Rend a back hoe. Lee |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message