 |
 | 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 / January 2007A rational Canadian approach to firearms.
From another forum. Not everyone in Canada is a sheep. Lee ---------------------------------------------------------- For Immediate Release January 6, 2007 "Katey's Firearms Facts" film released Katey Montague, the daughter of Bruce and Donna Montague, has released her first short film, titled "Katey's Firearms Facts" on the video-sharing service YouTube.com. After researching some of the more ludicrous bungles by the CFC, Katey relates her findings in her own funny and engaging style. Katey has acted in Dryden's theatre scene for years. It only took the smallest encouragement from family friend Christopher di Armani to get Katey started in her first film project. Given Katey's lineage, it is not surprising that she shares her parents' passion for the truth. Once she saw how fun making her own movie was, Katey decided to launch her own YouTube channel to showcase her acting talent and her views on Canada's Firearms Act and self-defense. The first four video vignettes, which take a refreshing view of self-defense, have also been released on YouTube.com. To view Katey's film debut and her short videos, please visit her very own channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kateysfirearmsfacts Bet she's not tough enough to play hockey, though. Are you sure she's Canadian? We've been assured, time, and time, and time again, That Canadians -Never-; -Ever-; Think about things like this. Not only do they not consider it, They have no reason to.  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 > From another forum. Not everyone in Canada is a sheep. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kateysfirearmsfacts WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEE... Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote > Are you sure she's Canadian? We've been assured, time, and time, and > time again, that Canadians nevern ever think about > things like this. Not only do they not consider it, They have no reason > to. Apparently, the problem is of our own making. No surpise there. It appears all Canadian problems are, in some way, our fault. At any rate, it looks like the roles of the sexes, in Canada, are reversed from those in this country. The men are nieve, dependent and passive. The women are sophisticated, alert and proactive. Our mistake appears to have been in assuming otherwise. Lee > Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sophisticated, alert and proactive. Our mistake appears to have been in > assuming otherwise. I dunno. Look at the balls on chilly. It's simply amazing that a 13 year old girl can study data and draw a simple, logical concussion that an allegedly open-minded, educated worldly 60 year old can spend years and years refusing to even attempt to understand. I'm beginning to see why he holds that Polish dipshit in such high esteem. SignatureFrom: Douglas W. Popeye Frederick - view profile Date: Tues, Apr 19 2005 11:28 am Email: "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Buzcutt...@aol.com> "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > Sage advice. Thinking presupposes an open mind. Having an open mind > > doesn't mean considering only the pro gun side of the argument. > "Like that nonsense that over-the-hill rock & roller in the camo cowboy > hat was spouting to the NRA convention." > Wide open, your mind. ====== > It's your right to arbitrarily place everyone who doesn't love guns in the > gungrabber category? What about the people who simply don't care? Are they > your enemies too? -JOF As far as we can tell. You've never weighed in at that position, however. -Popeye ====== "I try to couch my comments in neutrality. I try to remain dispassionate. Reason fails when passion rules, or something like that." -JOF ====== "and most of us have learned that to survive in this world we need to be open minded and willing to learn new things. I'm just trying to survive." _JOF ====== "In rec.scuba terms I think I'm pretty darned neutral." -JOF ====== >> >> > That "neutrality" thing needs a bit of polish. >> >> In rec.scuba terms I think I'm pretty darned neutral. >> > That "neutrality" thing needs a bit of polish. >> To bring it up to rec.scuba standards? 8) > To actually be doing what you, yourself, describe. That one whooshed me. -JOF ====== "It was a reference to some earlier comments of yours where you made erroneous assumptions based on what you thought I meant to say." -JOF ====== >> >> Frankly, most of our livelier discussions are exercises in endurance >> >> only, as few here seem prepared to move off their chosen party line >> >> regardless of how compelling the counter arguments might be. >> > That would include you, of course. >> I think I'm fairly open minded. I have conceded points in the past, but >> most of the time concessions are seen only as signs of weakness and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> discussions exercises in semantics only, but sometimes interesting all >> the same. > Like I said, that would include you, of course. No. I'm open to rational argument. -JOF ====== > At any rate, it was clear what you said, in a snobbish and insulting > manor. You guys are too sensitive. I wasn't saying anything like that, just defending my own point of view.-JOF ====== >> Perhaps you'd get more sympathy for your cause if you stopped referring >> to anyone who doesn't come out wholeheartedly in defense of absolute gun >> freedom as a "gungrabber". >Pure hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration.-JOF "I believe the Second Amendment covers that. The "Shall not be infringed" part is evidently sacrosanct annd inviolable." ====== Popeye You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone www.finalprotectivefire.com Douglas W Popeye Frederick napisal(a): > > Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 60 year old can spend years and years refusing to even attempt to > understand. Dougy has new idol - 13 year old dumb blonde - LOL BTW there is a link to her father web page. He needs money. Be a man and send him some bucks. Support your fellow gun hugger. Popeye wrote: > We've been assured, time, and time, and time again, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > They have no reason to. Cite please. Cam > Popeye wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Cite please. I'll get right on it. 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 Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Fatboy\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: >> Cite please. > > I'll get right on it. And never produce it, as usual. It's as fictional as your claim to drive your truck in Canada with your firearms hidden in the truck. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Popeye wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I'll get right on it. I take it Cam has neve rread JOF's posts on guns? Dennis On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:35 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> > Popeye wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Dennis Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be time for Chester to show up... --- Mike from Ottawa > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:35 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >>> >> We've been assured, time, and time, and time again, >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this > kind of crap? Many times. Blanket statements. > I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. Not till we started proving you wrong. As we continue to do. > Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always > does. Must be pretty embarrassing to have a 13 yr old Canadian version of a Valley Girl make you look so stupid. > It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be > time for Chester to show up... Methinks thou doth protest too much... Nice to see you're still obsessed with my genitals, though. You need a hobby, dude. Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: >> Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this >> kind of crap? > > Many times. In your delusions, Fatboy. You'll never produce an actual quote that matches it. Just like you will also never admit that you lied when you claimed to keep a firearm in your truck when you drive in Canada. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:35 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this > kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. I recall, it being more like "we have no reason to...." :-) > Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always > does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be > time for Chester to show up... Ahh....so when folks say stuff like "Americans are ....." instead of "most or some Americans are ...." will you stand proudly and say "that's xenophobic! you can't generalize like that!" :-) Dennis Hwæt! "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: >> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he >> always does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > instead of "most or some Americans are ...." will you stand > proudly and say "that's xenophobic! He was talking about Fatboy, not "folks", fuckwit. You can't honestly address what he wrote so you go after a lame strawman argument. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:57:56 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:35 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >I recall, it being more like "we have no reason to...." :-) I'd agree with that, because you'd find the majority of us have no reason or desire to carry, even though huge numbers are hunters and own hunting rifles. But that's not what Spike said, is it? As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people (including nutters, criminals and quick-triggered gun freaks) are also carrying. >> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always >> does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >or some Americans are ...." will you stand proudly and say "that's >xenophobic! you can't generalize like that!" :-) Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or any other Yank makes generalisations. --- Mike from Ottawa > But that's not what Spike said, is it? > Mike from Ottawa -I- stand by what -I- say, on some cited points for almost a decade now. -You- people are the ones trying to squirm out of what you've been saying, for about the same amount of time. And he didn't say "most", and neither did you. Hwæt! "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > -I- stand by what -I- say, Yet you'll never produce an actual quote that matches it, Fatboy. What you "say" is simple-minded dishonesty. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:57:56 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > reason or desire to carry, even though huge numbers are hunters and > own hunting rifles. But that's not what Spike said, is it? Really? JOF used "we", referring to Canadians. Popeye said "they", referring to Canadians. > As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I > lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people > (including nutters, criminals and quick-triggered gun freaks) are also > carrying. Criminals also carry in Canada. Surely you've seen the reports? Crooks tend to ignore laws, including gn laws. > >> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always > >> does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or > any other Yank makes generalisations. If I were to be critical of generalizations, I'd speak out agains 'em all, rather than be selective :-) Dennis Hwæt! "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > Criminals also carry in Canada. Very few do, Dennis. You're making a dishonest and false generalization. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:28:48 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:57:56 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They have no reason to. <snip> >> >> Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this >> >> kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >JOF used "we", referring to Canadians. >Popeye said "they", referring to Canadians. Spike didn't say "some Canadians." I don't recall exactly what John said, but my impression was that he referred to the majority, since there are always exceptions. >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Criminals also carry in Canada. Surely you've seen the reports? >Crooks tend to ignore laws, including gn laws. Sure, so what? Not all criminals carry. Down there, you've also got the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be poorly trained and trigger-happy. In the US, I'd want to carry to protect myself against both your legal and illegal gun-carriers. If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. We took our own path on gun control, and your history led you down another path. I really don't care if all/some/none of you has guns. >> >> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always >> >> does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >or some Americans are ...." will you stand proudly and say "that's >> >xenophobic! you can't generalize like that!" :-) Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners, not just specific countries. S&C love to rail against Canadians, Europeans, Arabs and whomever. Booooooring. >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or >> any other Yank makes generalisations. > >If I were to be critical of generalizations, I'd speak out agains 'em all, >rather than be selective :-) Ah, but you don't. The critical word is "if." S&C are your buddies so they get free reign. --- Mike from Ottawa > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:28:48 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > said, but my impression was that he referred to the majority, since > there are always exceptions. You do realize, of course, that "they" can refer to people in general, right? > >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I > >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sure, so what? Not all criminals carry. Down there, you've also got So Canadian criminals who carry - no problem - no fear. > the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not > too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be > poorly trained and trigger-happy. In the US, I'd want to carry to > protect myself against both your legal and illegal gun-carriers. And isn't it cool that you'd have that choice? > If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I > wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. > > We took our own path on gun control, and your history led you down > another path. I really don't care if all/some/none of you has guns. Good deal. > >> >> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always > >> >> does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > love to rail against Canadians, Europeans, Arabs and whomever. > Booooooring. They've railed against Arab terrorists, Europeans who are appeasement-minded, and Canadians who argue ignorantly about firearms. That to you constitutes xenophobia? > >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or > >> any other Yank makes generalisations. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah, but you don't. The critical word is "if." S&C are your buddies > so they get free reign. I'm also not critical of other folks when they generalize :-) Dennis On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:03:47 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:28:48 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They have no reason to. <snip> >> >Really? >> >JOF used "we", referring to Canadians. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You do realize, of course, that "they" can refer to people in general, >right? You do realise that you are intentionally being obtuse, right? You know that S&C generalise continually about anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them, and then you can add in all the insults. It's their MO. >> >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I >> >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >So Canadian criminals who carry - no problem - no fear. Nice of you to worry so much about us but you just don't know us, and you've got a lot of your own problems and fears. >> the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not >> too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be >> poorly trained and trigger-happy. In the US, I'd want to carry to >> protect myself against both your legal and illegal gun-carriers. > >And isn't it cool that you'd have that choice? Really now, you don't have much choice. You've got far too many people with too many guns. You have to realise that out of all the "legal" gun-toters there are bound to be a percentage who are on the fringe of sanity, or trigger-happy, or poorly-trained, or overly-aggressive, etc, who could very well be a risk to you if you, even inadvertently, pissed them off. Our choice here is not the same as yours. Respect it. >> If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I >> wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. You have no comment on that. I take it that you agree. <snip> >> Xenophobia is a fear of foreigners, not just specific countries. S&C >> love to rail against Canadians, Europeans, Arabs and whomever. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >appeasement-minded, and Canadians who argue ignorantly about firearms. That >to you constitutes xenophobia? It doesn't have to be about guns. They've continually insulted a lot of non-Americans over nothing. No, I won't go back and find the cites, and if you can't remember then you're memory is very convenient. There have been countless insults against Canadians, Poles, French, etc. I do have to admit that it's difficult to feel truly slighted by a couple of frothing-at-the-mouth loonies. >> >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or >> >> any other Yank makes generalisations. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'm also not critical of other folks when they generalize :-) But you had to jump into this thread and make your comments... I suppose you're critical only if it affects your buddies. Whatever. --- Mike from Ottawa > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:03:47 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 100% with them, and then you can add in all the insults. It's their > MO. Well, lets see, you're giving JOF the benefit of the doubt "impression that he referred to the majority" but Popeye....even though he's quoting JOF, doesn'tget this benefit. :-) Want to reconsider? > >> >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I > >> >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nice of you to worry so much about us but you just don't know us, and > you've got a lot of your own problems and fears. Well, lets see...you seem to fear American crooks who carry, but not Canadian crooks. Just trying to find out why. > >> the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not > >> too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Really now, you don't have much choice. You've got far too many Well, the anti-gun crowd is working on it, but we still have a choice. > people with too many guns. You have to realise that out of all the > "legal" gun-toters there are bound to be a percentage who are on the > fringe of sanity, or trigger-happy, or poorly-trained, or > overly-aggressive, etc, who could very well be a risk to you if you, > even inadvertently, pissed them off. Same is true with cars, golf clubs, baseball bats, knives, etc. Need I remind you of the call for banning "long kitchen knives" in England? > Our choice here is not the same as yours. Respect it. We're like a friend who sees another making a bad descion. You & your contry can, of course, decide as you like. And we'll feel free to tell you our opinion based on our experiences. Kind of like the way some Canadians will tell us why we're wrong. :-) > >> If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I > >> wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. > > You have no comment on that. I take it that you agree. So what was I suppsoed to comment on? Whether they might or might not have a firearm? You have no idea whether ANYONE wh cuts you off is armed or not. Regardless of what your laws say. Here's a clue: Criminals break laws I'll go over it again Criminals break laws So have no idea whether the driver of the other vehicle is a chap just going out to meet a friend, or someone just itching to shoot someone. You can guess, but you don't KNOW :-) They could be armed - carrying illegally. You don't know. > <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Poles, French, etc. I do have to admit that it's difficult to feel > truly slighted by a couple of frothing-at-the-mouth loonies. Good. You've hit on a rule I've been foillowing for years. In order to be insuted, I have to care abut that person's opinion. > >> >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or > >> >> any other Yank makes generalisations. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But you had to jump into this thread and make your comments... I > suppose you're critical only if it affects your buddies. Whatever. I just asked a question. :-) I take it you don't see your characterization of "joe nutter" /gun freak" can also be insulting? How about "poorly trained" or "trigger happy"? You know, it doesn't make you look good to whine about another's insulting comment while making your own. :-) Dennis Hwæt! "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > Popeye....even though he's quoting JOF, He never quoted JOF, fuckwit. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:00:29 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:03:47 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Want to reconsider? What are you talking about? You have Spike's post right here, but you'd have to go searching for John's quotes. Maybe you should reconsider. >> >> >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I >> >> >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Canadian crooks. >Just trying to find out why. Try to be logical. Most criminals here wouldn't need to have guns. As for fearing your criminals, I'd include the half-baked legal gun-toters in with them as reasons for me carrying. >> >> the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not >> >> too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Same is true with cars, golf clubs, baseball bats, knives, etc. >Need I remind you of the call for banning "long kitchen knives" in England? I don't think I'd be overly concerned about some idiot in a car armed with a knife. >> Our choice here is not the same as yours. Respect it. > >We're like a friend who sees another making a bad descion. >You & your contry can, of course, decide as you like. >And we'll feel free to tell you our opinion based on our experiences. >Kind of like the way some Canadians will tell us why we're wrong. :-) More often it's patronising, as if you've made the best decision and anyone who takes a different route is nuts. Whenever someone makes a comment about the actions of the US, esp. when you go overseas to whump someone who pissed you off, you get all pissy. >> >> If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I >> >> wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You have no idea whether ANYONE wh cuts you off is armed or not. Regardless >of what your laws say. The average person here doesn't carry. The average nutter here doesn't carry. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I'm also not overly concerned about a meterorite falling on my head. >Here's a clue: > Criminals break laws [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You don't know. It just ain't likely at all. In the US, you can't say that. <snip> >> It doesn't have to be about guns. They've continually insulted a lot >> of non-Americans over nothing. No, I won't go back and find the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Good. You've hit on a rule I've been foillowing for years. >In order to be insuted, I have to care abut that person's opinion. So as long as S&C don't insult Merkans, you're fine? Cool. S&C are in my kf, since their rants are tedious and repetitive and I don't give a damn about their opinions. >> >> >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or >> >> >> any other Yank makes generalisations. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >can also be insulting? >How about "poorly trained" or "trigger happy"? Why? Are all legal gun toters in the US completely sane and not trigger-happy? I'm talking about the fringe group, not the well-trained ones. Hell, even those who are well-trained may react poorly in a fast-moving, stressful situation. Having a large, armed population of citizens and criminals is dangerous, and would be my own reason for carrying if I lived down there. We have our own nutters, gun freaks, etc, but they're much less likely to be armed. >You know, it doesn't make you look good to whine about another's insulting >comment while making your own. >:-) Who's whining? You have double standards, one for your buddies and one for everyone else. ;o) --- Mike from Ottawa Hwæt! Mike from Ottawa <mev@tikaCANOE.ca>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > Hell, even those who are well-trained may react > poorly in a fast-moving, stressful situation. Like Harold Fish in Arizona. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:00:29 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> >> >> >> >message news:12qa8fh5pqlps32@news.supernews.com... > >> >> >> >> >> "Cam" <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message news:1168447625.865783.17890@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> >> >> > Popeye wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > you'd have to go searching for John's quotes. Maybe you should > reconsider. Feel free to go searching for JOF's quote, "convenient memory" you have, though. :-) > >> >> >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I > >> >> >> lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Try to be logical. Most criminals here wouldn't need to have guns. As And yet, they do. :-) > for fearing your criminals, I'd include the half-baked legal > gun-toters in with them as reasons for me carrying. You whine about insults to others, and here youa re now insulting gun owners. Or trying to at any rate :-) > >> >> the average Joe nutter and gun freak also carrying, whereas we're not > >> >> too likely to have that situation. Your legal gun owners may also be [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I don't think I'd be overly concerned about some idiot in a car armed > with a knife. Knives kill too, or are those deaths ok, since a gun wasn't involved? > >> Our choice here is not the same as yours. Respect it. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > comment about the actions of the US, esp. when you go overseas to > whump someone who pissed you off, you get all pissy. Its because we know how the story works. we'll get criticized for taking out a madman (Iraq, 2003) we'll get criticized for not taking out a madman (Iraq, 1991) we'll get cricicized for stopping genocide (Iraq, 2003) we'll get criticized for not stopping genocide (Darfur, Rwanda) Regardless, whatever action we take, the same roup of folks will be critical. So I hope you see why we'll "get pissy" when the same folks are criticizingw ahtever we decide. > >> >> If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I > >> >> wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > doesn't carry. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I'm also not > overly concerned about a meterorite falling on my head. All it takes in running into that "nutter". Here, you hae the option to be armed as well. > >Here's a clue: > > Criminals break laws [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It just ain't likely at all. In the US, you can't say that. So you agree that you dont know? > <snip> > >> It doesn't have to be about guns. They've continually insulted a lot [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So as long as S&C don't insult Merkans, you're fine? Cool. S&C are And where do you get that from my comment? > in my kf, since their rants are tedious and repetitive and I don't > give a damn about their opinions. And yet, you bring 'em up quite often. > >> >> >> Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or > >> >> >> any other Yank makes generalisations. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > population of citizens and criminals is dangerous, and would be my own > reason for carrying if I lived down there. Yep, you don't see the insult. Figured as much. :-) > We have our own nutters, gun freaks, etc, but they're much less likely > to be armed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who's whining? You have double standards, one for your buddies and You are. I thought I was clear about that. > one for everyone else. ;o) Incorrect, but that's nothing new. :-) Dennis On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:25:14 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: <snip> >> >> >> Spike didn't say "some Canadians." I don't recall exactly what John >> >> >> said, but my impression was that he referred to the majority, since [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >though. >:-) Not nearly as convenient as yours. Typical, though. ;) >> >> >> >> As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying >if I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >And yet, they do. :-) Most Canadian criminals carry? And you know this how? Fascinating. ;) >> for fearing your criminals, I'd include the half-baked legal >> gun-toters in with them as reasons for me carrying. > >You whine about insults to others, and here youa re now insulting gun >owners. >Or trying to at any rate :-) Comprehension problem? I was talking about the nutters. <snip> >> I don't think I'd be overly concerned about some idiot in a car armed >> with a knife. > >Knives kill too, or are those deaths ok, since a gun wasn't involved? I was talking about an idiot in a car. Lots of knifing deaths in car incidents down there? >> >> Our choice here is not the same as yours. Respect it. >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >we'll get cricicized for stopping genocide (Iraq, 2003) >we'll get criticized for not stopping genocide (Darfur, Rwanda) You support and arm madmen and dictators. You stop supporting madmen and dictators. You attack madmen and dictators. You support new madmen and dictators. Nobody gives a sh.t what you do to and in your own country, but if you go overseas and do some stupid BS, you gotta expect someone to speak up. You obviously don't see or care about your own hypocrisy. That's cool, we know how you operate. ;) >Regardless, whatever action we take, the same roup of folks will be >critical. >So I hope you see why we'll "get pissy" when the same folks are criticizingw >ahtever we decide. So we're allowed to get pissy when some xenophobic, drooling idiots attack us. Cool. ;) >> >> >> If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, >I [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >All it takes in running into that "nutter". >Here, you hae the option to be armed as well. More comprehension problems. The odds are in your favour here; they aren't in your favour down there. You pretty much have to be armed. Cool. Do whatever you want. >> >Here's a clue: >> > Criminals break laws [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >So you agree that you dont know? Not 100%, but I'd be willing to bet money that he isn't. In fact, it's so unlikely it doesn't even occur to us. Are you willing to bet in a similar situation down there? Again, you don't have a bloody clue what it's like here. ;) >> <snip> >> >> It doesn't have to be about guns. They've continually insulted a lot [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And where do you get that from my comment? You always support S&C. Maybe you're afraid of them. Hey, if Spike just sat on you, it would be a crushing experience. ;) >> in my kf, since their rants are tedious and repetitive and I don't >> give a damn about their opinions. > >And yet, you bring 'em up quite often. Hardly. I almost never bother posting anything to this ng, except when the spirit moves me. You seem to spend all your time here, and you always seem to want to have the last word, along with a smiley. Odd, but your choice. Maybe you need some new hobbies. ;) <snip> >> >I just asked a question. :-) >> >I take it you don't see your characterization of "joe nutter" /gun freak" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yep, you don't see the insult. Figured as much. >:-) Oui, tu ne comprends pas, comme toujours. A definite pattern. ;) So, why do you want to be armed? Is it only because of the armed criminals? You have no fear of the fringe lunatics who are also armed? Have they stopped shooting each other on LA's freeways? >> We have our own nutters, gun freaks, etc, but they're much less likely >> to be armed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Who's whining? You have double standards, one for your buddies and >You are. I thought I was clear about that. No, you and S&C and their followers are the constant whiners. Everyone's picking on the good ol' US, so you'll try to turn the tables, even if it's complete BS. Bizarre. Ya gotta find some new material. ;) >> one for everyone else. ;o) > >Incorrect, but that's nothing new. :-) Right back at ya, not that you've even tried or cared to understand. Or maybe you're just playing dumb. Whatever turns your crank. ;) You can make the last post on this now. I'm bored with it. ;) --- Mike from Ottawa > So, why do you want to be armed? Is it only because of the armed > criminals? You have no fear of the fringe lunatics who are also > armed? Have they stopped shooting each other on LA's freeways? Apparently they have. There hasn't been a single freeway shooting here since Wednesday. "LOS ANGELES, January 16, 2007 - A man was killed Monday night in a shooting on the westbound 60 Freeway in East Los Angeles in what authorities are calling a case of road rage, according to a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department sergeant." http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4940263 > > So, why do you want to be armed? Is it only because of the armed > > criminals? You have no fear of the fringe lunatics who are also [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4940263 Stop it, or I'll sue. >> > So, why do you want to be armed? Is it only because of the armed >> > criminals? You have no fear of the fringe lunatics who are also [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Stop it, or I'll sue. So according to John's article posting paradigm, Greg is in fact saying freeway shootings are a good thing? On Jan 19, 1:51 am, "Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick" > So according to John's article posting paradigm, Greg is in fact saying > freeway shootings are a good thing? Anything to keep drivers off the clogged freeways. Personally I'd rather see better public transportation, but bullets are cheaper. On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:22:06 -0800, in <1169227326.281869.163950@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Greg Mossman wrote: > Anything to keep drivers off the clogged freeways. Personally I'd > rather see better public transportation, but bullets are cheaper. Grace started her new contract over in Irvine this week... So far, her impression is that although the hotel is not really all that far from the Toshiba facility, the area is not really pedestrian friendly... One surprise for her this morning though was that while waiting on her ride in the hotel lobby, she was sitting across from Tommy Lee Jones -- a good ol'Texas boy, even if he does have Democratic leanings... > Grace started her new contract over in Irvine this week... So far, her > impression is that although the hotel is not really all that far from the > Toshiba facility, the area is not really pedestrian friendly... One > surprise for her this morning though was that while waiting on her ride in > the hotel lobby, she was sitting across from Tommy Lee Jones -- a good > ol'Texas boy, even if he does have Democratic leanings... One of my favorite actors. Please don't tell me anything I don't want to know about him. Lee > One of my favorite actors. Please don't tell me anything I don't want > to know about him. You mean like he was a roommate with Al Gore at Harvard and they're still friends? OK... >> One of my favorite actors. Please don't tell me anything I don't want >> to know about him. > You mean like he was a roommate with Al Gore at Harvard and they're still > friends? OK... Fingers in ears. La la, la, la, la . . . Lee > >> One of my favorite actors. Please don't tell me anything I don't want > >> to know about him. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee He's pretty good, but Kevin Spacey and William H. Macy are much better. Of course, if you need someone to play an insane guy, your best bet is easily Jack Nicholson(sp?). >>> One of my favorite actors. Please don't tell me anything I don't want >>> to know about him. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Fingers in ears. La la, la, la, la . . . and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" > Lee > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:22:06 -0800, in > <1169227326.281869.163950@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Greg Mossman [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the hotel lobby, she was sitting across from Tommy Lee Jones -- a good > ol'Texas boy, even if he does have Democratic leanings... He's got a ranch up in that area somewhere doesn't he? > He's got a ranch up in that area somewhere doesn't he? A 3000 acre ranch over near San Antonio, if I remember correctly... > > He's got a ranch up in that area somewhere doesn't he? > > A 3000 acre ranch over near San Antonio, if I remember correctly... Irvine, San Antonio, that's pretty close to the same area. You have to remember that I'm from west Texas. If it's not over 400 miles away, it might as well be next door. > More often it's patronising, as if you've made the best decision and > anyone who takes a different route is nuts. Whenever someone makes a > comment about the actions of the US, esp. when you go overseas to > whump someone who pissed you off, you get all pissy. Not at all. You've not been listening. It's not a different route at all. It's the same route, we're just further along it than you are. We've been where you are. We watched violent crime increase until it was out of control. We tried restricting access to guns, registering them, requiring a waiting period, background checks and even outright bans of some guns everywhere and all guns in some locations. It didn't work, so we tried something else. It's working much better. We've told you, time and time again, that you are where we have been. We've told you what will happen and demonstrated that exactly what we predicted is happening. You're, the generic you, not necessarily you in particular, are in denial. You're still hoping that laws to control of one of the means of violence will control the violence itself. It just ain't going to happen. Lee Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, soðe: > We've told you, time and time again, that you are where we have > been. No, dimwit, Canada is miles ahead of the USA and always has been. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hwæt! "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > They could be armed - carrying illegally. > > You don't know. Nah, they'd most likely be like Mike Shelley. They'd brag about carrying illegally but not actually have a gun with them. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hwæt! Mike from Ottawa <mev@tikaCANOE.ca>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > You have to realise that out of all the > "legal" gun-toters there are bound to be a percentage who are on > the fringe of sanity, or trigger-happy, or poorly-trained, or > overly-aggressive, etc, who could very well be a risk to you if > you, even inadvertently, pissed them off. People like Jay Levin & Harold Fish, both of whom are former CHL holders who have been convicted of murder SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > If I'm in my car & someone cuts me off and I blast the horn at him, I > wouldn't automatically think that the idiot has a gun. You might. I do. So what. There are thousands of Canadians here right now, mostly having horns blown at them rather than blowing at others. They're, without a doubt, the worst group of drivers that visit south Florida. Regardless, I've yet to shoot one for endangering others with his driving, of for blowing a horn at me. Hell, I haven't even been particularly tempted. On the other hand, I have been tempted to shoot those punk a.sholes that pull up near me at a light with their cannon base systems turned up so loud that it vibrates the mirrors in cars 50 feet away. If that description fits you, you would be wise to stay at home. > On the other hand, I have been tempted to shoot those punk a.sholes that > pull up near me at a light with their cannon base systems turned up so > loud that it vibrates the mirrors in cars 50 feet away. If that > description fits you, you would be wise to stay at home. A 12-gauge round through their subwoofers would be very appropriate... >> On the other hand, I have been tempted to shoot those punk a.sholes that >> pull up near me at a light with their cannon base systems turned up so >> loud that it vibrates the mirrors in cars 50 feet away. If that >> description fits you, you would be wise to stay at home. > >A 12-gauge round through their subwoofers would be very appropriate... OK, you've given me another excellent reason for carrying... --- Mike from Ottawa >> On the other hand, I have been tempted to shoot those punk a.sholes that >> pull up near me at a light with their cannon base systems turned up so >> loud that it vibrates the mirrors in cars 50 feet away. If that >> description fits you, you would be wise to stay at home. > > A 12-gauge round through their subwoofers would be very appropriate... Effective, perhaps, but too cumbersome. .45 or 10mm is the best I can do. > Effective, perhaps, but too cumbersome. .45 or 10mm is the best I can > do. Not that cumbersome with a pistol grip and a 18" barrel like the one that I used to carry in my Jeep... Fits in the passenger seat foot area with the barrel on the floorboard and the grip right by the shifter... >> Effective, perhaps, but too cumbersome. .45 or 10mm is the best I can >> do. > Not that cumbersome with a pistol grip and a 18" barrel like the one that > I used to carry in my Jeep... Fits in the passenger seat foot area with > the barrel on the floorboard and the grip right by the shifter... Certainly an effective weapon, but still more cumbersome than what I prefer. More to the point, however, I will never own a shortbarrel shotgun or one with a pistol grip. In my personal opinion, such a gun has no purpose other than defense against people and, in my personal opinion, the chances I'll actually have to defend myself is low enough to keep me from spending a lot of money for something with such a limited purpose. I have several shotguns, all of which would be effective against bad guys or bad stereos, but none of which are designed, or owned specifically for that purpose. They are all either hunting or target shooting guns first and defensive weapons second. The same is true of my rifles, including my AR-15, the only gun I have to looks military. It's the H-Bar target model. I have several pistols that are specifically for personal defense, more than I need or want. I'll soon be selling some of them. I have several friends that, like me, believe in carrying a defensive weapon when cruising. We're not talking about a day running around the bay in a small boat. These are self contained cruising boats, motor homes on the water. Two of them bought pistol grip shotguns. I tried to talk them out of them, but the manufacturer's sales force was more effective than I was. Personally, I think they made a bad choice on several levels: 1. Neither of them has found a place, on land, that they can practice with their new gun. A gun you're not familiar enough with to use quickly and effectively, isn't much good for self defense. 2. While a pistol grip shotgun is OK for either of these guys, it's not OK for their wives. Most, but not all women, are not comfortable with that much recoil. A gun that can not be used by anybody aboard, is of much less value in an emergency than one that everyone aboard can use effectively. 3. A shotgun is a short range weapon. If I need that kind of power in a defensive weapon, I want it to be effective at longer ranges. For my money, a small rifle, most likely a Ruger Mini-14 in .223, preferably with a folding stock, is a better boat gun than a shotgun ever will be. 4. I've already mentioned that a pistol grip gun has very limited use. Having said all of that, I carry a pistol aboard my boat, one either my wife or I can shoot effectively and one I shoot often enough to be effective with out to 50 yards, give or take. It's not as good as a rifle, not as powerful as a shotgun, but more concealable and more likely to be at hand when needed than either of the options. Lee <snip> > 3. A shotgun is a short range weapon. If I need that kind of power in a > defensive weapon, I want it to be effective at longer ranges. For my money, > a small rifle, most likely a Ruger Mini-14 in .223, preferably with a > folding stock, is a better boat gun than a shotgun ever will be. Good choice on the folding stock. Given folks' worry over weapons that have them, its sure to be more effective than one without. :-) SignatureDennis <snip> >> 3. A shotgun is a short range weapon. If I need that kind of power in a >> defensive weapon, I want it to be effective at longer ranges. For my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have > them, its sure to be more effective than one without. Stores smaller. On a boat, space is at a premium. I don't know about all those deadly killer criminals hiding folding stock assault weapons in their pants, but, personally, I'm going to open the stock back up before firing. I'm not all that good with a normal pistol. I'd almost certainly be awful with a two foot one in .223. Lee > >> 3. A shotgun is a short range weapon. If I need that kind of power in a > >> defensive weapon, I want it to be effective at longer ranges. For my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Stores smaller. On a boat, space is at a premium. I don't know about all Indeed :-) > those deadly killer criminals hiding folding stock assault weapons in their > pants, but, personally, I'm going to open the stock back up before firing. > I'm not all that good with a normal pistol. I'd almost certainly be awful > with a two foot one in .223. SignatureDennis > Certainly an effective weapon, but still more cumbersome than what I > prefer. It serves a particular mission profile... Back before Texas had a CHL, carrying a rifle or shotgun was pretty much all you could "legally" do in your vehicle except for various special circumstances... Of course, I wasn't always "legal", but I was when convenient to be so... > More to the point, however, I will never own a shortbarrel shotgun or > one with a pistol grip. In my personal opinion, such a gun has no > purpose other than defense against people and, in my personal opinion, > the chances I'll actually have to defend myself is low enough to keep me > from spending a lot of money for something with such a limited purpose. The Winchester 1300 that I bought was relatively inexpensive at the time... Although it has a shorter barrel (i.e. 18 1/8"), the pattern that it throws if fairly tight... Total length of the firearm is about 29"... At a typical defensive range, you'll probably throw a pattern of a couple of inches in diameter... By the time that the pattern gets to be saucer sized, you've probably got out of the realm of where you could justify it by saying that you felt threatened and it was a defensive shooting... Of course, this just assumes that you don't to the responsible thing and dispose of the trash that you created yourself... > I have several shotguns, all of which would be effective against bad > guys or bad stereos, but none of which are designed, or owned > specifically for that purpose. They are all either hunting or target > shooting guns first and defensive weapons second. Although I have other shotguns, I don't really consider them as possible defensive weapons since I don't keep them loaded and they're locked up in my safe all the time... I haven't gone duck hunting in *many* years and it is unlikely that I'll ever go again... Quite frankly, I'm not that crazy about the taste of duck considering the fact that it requires getting up early on a weekend and often being cold and wet while in the process of getting the ducks... > The same is true of my rifles, including my AR-15, the only gun I have > to looks military. It's the H-Bar target model. I have a Russian SKS circa-1950 that was still in the original cosmoline... With the integrated bayonette, I suspect it's difficult to get more military looking than that... I bought it for collection purposes -- never even got around to firing it... Of course, if I had known that I would never fire it, I could have saved myself a lot of trouble and left it in the cosmoline... > I have several pistols that are specifically for personal defense, more > than I need or want. I'll soon be selling some of them. Hmmm... Don't think that I've *ever* sold a firearm... That's probably why I have a gun safe that weighs about as much as my aircraft... > I have several friends that, like me, believe in carrying a defensive > weapon when cruising. We're not talking about a day running around the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > shotgun ever will be. 4. I've already mentioned that a pistol grip gun > has very limited use. Each firearm has it's own particular mission profile... I would not necessarily classify as pistol grip shotgun as being appropriate for that sort of boat either... The good thing about the 1300 though is that it is available with both a pistol grip and a normal stock... For boat use in deterring unwanted guests, I would prefer a M203... It's good out to 350 yds... Legally acquiring one and the ammunition for it might be difficult or at least prohibitively expensive... Around here, finding a range to shoot a shotgun, rifle, or handgun is extremely easy... Hell, all I have to do is go down to the airport and there's a place on the other side of the railroad tracks near my hangar that I can use... > Having said all of that, I carry a pistol aboard my boat, one either my > wife or I can shoot effectively and one I shoot often enough to be > effective with out to 50 yards, give or take. It's not as good as a > rifle, not as powerful as a shotgun, but more concealable and more > likely to be at hand when needed than either of the options. A shotgun acts as a good deterrent... If they still keep getting closer after you've put a few shots their way with the shotgun, it might be time to think about a more close quartered weapon... > The Winchester 1300 that I bought was relatively inexpensive at the > time... Although it has a shorter barrel (i.e. 18 1/8"), the pattern that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > course, this just assumes that you don't to the responsible thing and > dispose of the trash that you created yourself... At the ranges you are talking about, I could put 9, 180 grain .40 caliber holes at something over 1,000 fps (and that's my reduced competition load) in someone before you could get your shotgun out. Now, I'll be the first to admit that, once you've stated firing, the first shot will do as much or more damage as all the shots I take, but like you, I figure the first one or two will do the job anyway. By the way, by this afternoon, I expect to be the owner, if not in actuall posession of a new Kimber Stainless II Target 1911 pistol chambered for .40. I got tired of the cost of 10mm brass at 100 lost cases per match and am opting for something a bit less expensive to reload. > Although I have other shotguns, I don't really consider them as possible > defensive weapons since I don't keep them loaded and they're locked up in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > early on a weekend and often being cold and wet while in the process of > getting the ducks... When I think about it and have a bit of time, I'll post my one and only duck hunting story. > Hmmm... Don't think that I've *ever* sold a firearm... That's probably why > I have a gun safe that weighs about as much as my aircraft... I don't sell many, but I've made a few poor choices lately. Not poor guns, mind you, just not what I wanted. I find I really appreciate 1911 pistols. Popeye told me, but I wasn't listening. I could have saved quite a bit had I paid more attention. > Each firearm has it's own particular mission profile... I would not > necessarily classify as pistol grip shotgun as being appropriate for that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to do is go down to the airport and there's a place on the other side of > the railroad tracks near my hangar that I can use... I've been dreaming about a small torpedo for years. Same problem. > A shotgun acts as a good deterrent... If they still keep getting closer > after you've put a few shots their way with the shotgun, it might be time > to think about a more close quartered weapon... If they keep coming after a few shots their way with a rifle, it's time to aim better. Why would I want them close enough for a shotgun? Lee > At the ranges you are talking about, I could put 9, 180 grain .40 > caliber holes at something over 1,000 fps (and that's my reduced > competition load) in someone before you could get your shotgun out. > Now, I'll be the first to admit that, once you've stated firing, the > first shot will do as much or more damage as all the shots I take, but > like you, I figure the first one or two will do the job anyway. I'm not saying that you shouldn't also have a handgun... I'm just saying that one's weapon choice should not necessarily be limited if you are not extremely limited in space... For some sort of cruiser boat in which the person is able to spend an extended time on the water, adding a long gun might be an option... Of course, the 12-gauge could also double as a flare gun and you could justify it that way... <grin> > When I think about it and have a bit of time, I'll post my one and only > duck hunting story. Well, I probably have a few duck hunting stories, but most of them center around being cold and wet... Sometimes breaking through ice and ending up underwater with only the shotgun and my hand still above the water... > If they keep coming after a few shots their way with a rifle, it's time > to aim better. Why would I want them close enough for a shotgun? Of course, there's also the M203's buckshot round... 27 pellets of 00 buckshot at a bit over 880 fps... Or the XM26... Basically a 12-gauge with a 5-shot detachable magazine stuck underneath the M16/M4 instead of the 40 mm grenade launcher... I guess it all depends upon how close you're going to let someone get to your boat when you're out at sea... Hwæt! Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com>, soðe: > Back before Texas had a CHL, > carrying a rifle or shotgun was pretty much all you could > "legally" do in your vehicle except for various special > circumstances... Of course, I wasn't always "legal", but I was > when convenient to be so... Like when you travel in Canada. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > There are thousands of Canadians here right now, mostly > having horns blown at them rather than blowing at others. > They're, without a doubt, the worst group of drivers that visit > south Florida. Those aren't Canadians, they're Quebeckers SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > On the other hand, I have been tempted to shoot those punk > a.sholes that pull up near me at a light with their cannon base > systems turned up so loud that it vibrates the mirrors in cars > 50 feet away. If that description fits you, you would be wise > to stay at home. Yet another fuckwit gunhugger who doesn't understand Ayoob's writings about self-defense. You better pray you never shoot anyone, Lee. If you do, all of the comments you've written like the above *will* be used against you by the prosecution. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this > kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. > Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always > does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be > time for Chester to show up... OK, you're right. We don't know that all Canadians don't think about the need to defend themselves. It was a mistake. How about "all Canadians in this forum?" Know any that don't agree with John's position? Lee Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, men ne cunnon secgan to soðe: > Know any that don't agree with John's position? Why don't you and your fuckwit buddies first accurately present his position instead of the strawman argument you're whacking. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this > > kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee Perhaps someone could succintly present the "position" ? It kinda gets lost in all the rhetoric (on both sides). I disagree with a lot of what ALL of you say. :-) Kari > Perhaps someone could succintly present the "position" ? If it were possible to state it succinctly, there wouldn't be thousands of messages on the topic. The best I can do is say that John believes, and has repeatedly stated, that Canada is a kinder and gentler place where there is no need for citizens to concern themselves with the kind of crimes that would warrant defense by potentially deadly force and, therefore, no need for the right of private ownership of defensive firearms. Lee Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, men ne cunn |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message