Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Gun Laws Kill - "Thirty-two fine young men and women are dead and that is a huge tragedy" --Michael Reagan

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
CB - 23 Apr 2007 01:45 GMT
Gun Laws Kill
 Michael Reagan
 Friday, April 20, 2007
 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/19/165815.shtml
Thirty-two fine young men and women are dead and that is a huge tragedy.

It is also, however, a tragedy that the death toll could have been
substantially lower if it were not for an absurd law that kept the students
and faculty from exercising their constitutional right to protect themselves
and others by bearing arms on campus.

Thanks to that law, a madman was able to confront the men and women at
Virginia Tech secure in the knowledge that he was armed while his victims
were unarmed and defenseless.

One of those victims used the only weapon he had to protect his students.
Liviu Librescu, a man who survived both the Nazi Holocaust and communist
tyranny in his native Romania, used his body as a defensive weapon against
the madman's assault, putting his shoulder to the door to keep the killer
from getting into the classroom while his students fled though the windows.

Tragically, that frail body was no match for the rapid-firing Glock 19 in
the hands of a crazed Cho Seung-Hui. Librescu paid with his life for being
the "body-in-between," as the Secret Service phrases their role in
protecting the president.

"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to
flee," Joe Librescu told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from
his home outside of Tel Aviv. "Students started opening windows and jumping
out."

Those students who made it out of their classrooms owe their lives to the
courageous Liviu Librescu, but they owe nothing but contempt for the
Virginia Legislature that decided in late January to deny to anyone on a
Virginia campus the right to carry legally authorized concealed weapons on
campus.

On Jan. 31, 2007, The Roanoke Times wrote: "Most universities in Virginia
require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with
police or campus security upon entering campus." The proposed legislation
was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or
regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a
valid concealed handgun permit . . . from lawfully carrying a concealed
handgun."

And guess who the newspaper quoted as gushing his approval of the
Legislature's lame-brained action to defeat the proposal? None other than
Virginia Tech spokesman and Vice President Larry Hincker, who told the
Times: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General
Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and
visitors feel safe on our campus."

In the aftermath of the killings on his campus, I wonder if Mr. Hincker
still believes his students and faculty who were so cruelly slain - most had
multiple wounds - remain safe on campus thanks to the Legislature's
ill-advised action that denied them the right of self-protection.

In Virginia, adults who have a lawfully issued permit to carry concealed
weapons anywhere in the state remain prohibited from protecting themselves
while on a state campus thanks to the defeat of the proposed law that would
have allowed them the same rights they had off-campus while on-campus.

The very fact that the state considers a person capable of carrying a
concealed handgun by its very act of granting a permit should demonstrate
that the state believes that the permit holder can be trusted to use that
handgun only for self protection.

It is patently absurd to judge sane, normal people as being incompetent and
untrustworthy to bear arms while blithely ignoring the obvious truth of the
old saying that when good people are legally disarmed, only bad people will
have guns.

Had just one student or faculty member on the Virginia Tech campus under
assault by the killer been armed last Monday, the death toll would have been
much lower.

As revealed in NewsMax.com, that was proven in Pearl, Miss., in 1997, when
16-year-old Luke Woodham used a hunting rifle to kill his ex-girlfriend and
her close friend, and wound seven other students after having killed his own
mother.

His murder spree was stopped only when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick got
his handgun from his car and halted Woodham's shooting spree. He kept
Woodham at bay until the police arrived. While the shooting was widely
reported, the fact that Myrick - an armed citizen - prevented a larger
massacre with his gun was ignored by the media.

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on
more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America
Network. Look for Mike's newest book, "Twice Adopted." E-mail comments to
Reagan@caglecartoons.com.

© 2007 Michael Reagan.

Signature

CB
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans..."
          --Bill Clinton

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
          --Senator Hillary Clinton 2004
            Karl Marx Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848

User - 23 Apr 2007 02:06 GMT
> Gun Laws Kill
>  Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
>
> © 2007 Michael Reagan.

They should be handed out at the door. When you go to the mall the same
thing should happen.  Movie theaters would be a good place along with
childcare centers. Maybe they should make some smaller guns for the kiddies.
If you happen to miss a place then it will only be a matter of time before
someone shoots up the church or the boy scouts camp meeting.

If you don't do all this then you will be causing the death of all that you
have forgotten. More guns means less criminal killing people without guns
but you have to go all the way.

Nice workable idea. Don't you think?
CB - 23 Apr 2007 02:50 GMT
>> Gun Laws Kill
>>  Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
>
> Nice workable idea. Don't you think?

It's always better to own than to rent
Wayne H. Wilhelm - 23 Apr 2007 05:03 GMT
>> Gun Laws Kill
>>  Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
>
> Nice workable idea. Don't you think?

We talk about allowing mature responsible adults to carry guns to defend
themselves.  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
to carry guns.

Who's the idiot?
Animal05 - 23 Apr 2007 05:14 GMT
>>>Gun Laws Kill
>>> Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 107 lines]
>
> Who's the idiot?

The socialist left anti gun crowd was making the same sort of claims
about Kennesaw Ga over 20 years ago when they mandated every household
have a gun.   Of course they were wrong.
CB - 23 Apr 2007 15:54 GMT
>>>>Gun Laws Kill
>>>> Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 111 lines]
> Kennesaw Ga over 20 years ago when they mandated every household have a
> gun.   Of course they were wrong.

Funny, I read an artical a few days ago which said just the opposite,
there's been no crime at all. No scum bag/Dim voters in that town.
CB - 23 Apr 2007 16:48 GMT
>>>>>Gun Laws Kill
>>>>> Michael Reagan
[quoted text clipped - 114 lines]
> Funny, I read an artical a few days ago which said just the opposite,
> there's been no crime at all. No scum bag/Dim voters in that town.

Sorry, I realize there are some good intention Democrats, I apologize for
including them into the cminal felon, Lib category or 'faction'
dechucka - 23 Apr 2007 08:58 GMT
You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
> to carry guns.
>
> Who's the idiot?

The VT killer was an ex psychiatric patient and a person of interest for
stalking but still bought a gun.

Which laws are an idiot
User - 23 Apr 2007 11:23 GMT
>  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>> to carry guns.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Which laws are an idiot

The manufacturers should be responsible for how the guns are distributed.
They make the product that kills. They should be held accountable for the
way they misused.
Dennis (Icarus) - 23 Apr 2007 12:36 GMT
> >  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
> >> to carry guns.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> They make the product that kills. They should be held accountable for the
> way they misused.

By your uhmmm.....(ok I'll be charitable)...logic....cell phone
manufacturers would be responsible for divers that get into an accident
because they're more focused on the conversation than driving. After all,
"they should be held accountable for the way they('re) misused".

Dennis
Joe English - 23 Apr 2007 13:05 GMT
>>> You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Dennis

How bout swimming pools, cars, atv, knives, spoons, and buckets, how
'bout the Federal Aviation, and the Federal Highway system?
User - 23 Apr 2007 13:09 GMT
>>>  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>> to carry guns.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> driving. After all, "they should be held accountable for the way
> they('re) misused".

 If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to kill
people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but no one cares
about real safety. If someone made a vehicle that could be miss used it
would be changed as would anything else. You know the issues and you know
the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed by some
that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.

Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The cost
would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the lobby or the users
that's for sure.
Lee Bell - 23 Apr 2007 15:59 GMT
>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to kill
> people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but no one
> cares about real safety. If someone made a vehicle that could be miss used
> it would be changed as would anything else. You know the issues and you
> know the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed
> by some that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.

DUI is a crime, one that kills more people than all the guns every made.
Seen anyone suing the automanufacturers for it?

Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
fastened?  Me neither.

> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The cost
> would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
> lobby or the users that's for sure.

A safer gun?  I'm all for it and, since you don't think cost matters, you
pay the cost and I'll be happy to comply.  Let me know when it's ready.
How's that.

I've had guns of my own since I was 6.  So far, nobody hurt, accidentally or
otherwise.  No mass murders, no robberies, no problems of any kind.  Imagine
that.

Lee
User - 23 Apr 2007 16:27 GMT
>>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
>> kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> DUI is a crime, one that kills more people than all the guns every
> made. Seen anyone suing the automanufacturers for it?

There have been continued improvements in vehicles from the start.   Do you
get to drive the original cars? No you don't. Why? Even though they could be
operated safely then, they can not conform to changing safety issues.

> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
> fastened?  Me neither.

 Then why are there laws that force you to wear them?

>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> you pay the cost and I'll be happy to comply.  Let me know when it's
> ready. How's that.

Sure you would.

> I've had guns of my own since I was 6.  So far, nobody hurt,
> accidentally or otherwise.  No mass murders, no robberies, no
> problems of any kind.  Imagine that.

 I have a car and have never had any troubles. What does that have to do
with anything. More lame repies. Why not outlaw Knives, ya. I know hard it
is to make a point.
Chris Guynn - 23 Apr 2007 18:11 GMT
<snip>

> > Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
> > fastened?  Me neither.
>
>   Then why are there laws that force you to wear them?

Because insurance companies have a lot of money for lobbyists.
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Apr 2007 03:02 GMT
> >>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
> >> kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> get to drive the original cars? No you don't. Why? Even though they could be
> operated safely then, they can not conform to changing safety issues.

Actually, yes you do. I've seen several cars from the early 1900s on the
road.

> > Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
> > fastened?  Me neither.
>
>   Then why are there laws that force you to wear them?

Nanny-state-types making further intrusions because they see you(figurative)
as too stupid to make the rigt decisions without them..

> >> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
> >> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> with anything. More lame repies. Why not outlaw Knives, ya. I know hard it
> is to make a point.

Good, then apply the same reasoning to firearms. Punish those who misuse the
item, you know, the guilty ones.
And there were folks in England calling for a ban on long kitchen knives.

Dennis
User - 24 Apr 2007 12:39 GMT
>>>>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
>>>> kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Actually, yes you do. I've seen several cars from the early 1900s on
> the road.

I have seen people shooting muskets too. Would you be doing either?

>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
>>> fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> you(figurative) as too stupid to make the rigt decisions without
> them..

Corperate insurance companies decide this. Not the state. Sorrry............

>>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
>>>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> And there were folks in England calling for a ban on long kitchen
> knives.

 I don't want to ban anything. I am just thinking of a  better way.    Many
people at home right now think about the same things. It would be nice if
there could be an over night fix but you can't just hand out guns and train
everyone in short time. Do you want medical records exposed and allow some
to be marked unfit? What is your solution?
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Apr 2007 13:51 GMT
> >>>>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
> >>>> kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>  I have seen people shooting muskets too. Would you be doing either?

I don't really have an interest in shooting firearms from that period.
Still, are you conceding that your comment about "do you get to drive the
original cars?" was an ineffective argument, contradicted by well...facts?
:-)

> >>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
> >>> fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Corperate insurance companies decide this. Not the state. Sorrry............

Corporate insurance companies don't make the laws. That's the role of the
legislature.
They can lobby, of course.

> >>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
> >>>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> everyone in short time. Do you want medical records exposed and allow some
> to be marked unfit? What is your solution?

I mention my solution above - punish those that misuse 'em.
Severely.

Dennis

Dennis
User - 24 Apr 2007 14:31 GMT
>>>>>>  If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes
>>>>>> to kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> the original cars?" was an ineffective argument, contradicted by
> well...facts? :-)

Similar to the claims that banning knives is being suggested every time a
gun topic come up. Just rants that make loose connections to bolster a
point.

>>>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their
>>>>> seatbelt fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> the legislature.
> They can lobby, of course.

So you disagree about insurance companies greatly influence laws?

>>>>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
>>>>>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> I mention my solution above - punish those that misuse 'em.
> Severely.

Great help.
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 04:17 GMT
<snip>

> > I don't really have an interest in shooting firearms from that period.
> > Still, are you conceding that your comment about "do you get to drive
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> gun topic come up. Just rants that make loose connections to bolster a
> point.

Uhmm...it was suggested. Surely you heard about it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=579102005
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221?eaf

Don't a lot of the arguments sound familiar?

> >>>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their
> >>>>> seatbelt fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>  So you disagree about insurance companies greatly influence laws?

Where did you get this? I said that the companies lobby.
But they don't "decide this". That's the role of the legislature.

> >>>>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
> >>>>>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> >
>  Great help.

Yes, it would.

Dennis
User - 25 Apr 2007 05:17 GMT
> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=579102005
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221?eaf

That remind me. Where are my scissors.

> Don't a lot of the arguments sound familiar?
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Where did you get this? I said that the companies lobby.
> But they don't "decide this". That's the role of the legislature.

I was under the impression that lobbyist had all the money and held the
loops

>>>>>>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues.
>>>>>>>> The cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Dennis
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 06:57 GMT
> > <snip>
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> That remind me. Where are my scissors.

So you see why its not such a "loose connection"? :-)

> > Don't a lot of the arguments sound familiar?

Scurried right past this, I see.

> >>>>>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their
> >>>>>>> seatbelt fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>  I was under the impression that lobbyist had all the money and held the
> loops

Glad I could clear this up for you.

<snip>
User - 25 Apr 2007 11:42 GMT
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> So you see why its not such a "loose connection"? :-)

I am not surprised at anything I see these days. All I see is one doctor
making a statement about knives. I would not call this a movement. Sort of
silly. I bet there are not a bunch of steak knife nuts thrashing around
right now.

>>> Don't a lot of the arguments sound familiar?
>
> Scurried right past this, I see.

Scurried past what?You didn't see my head nod.

Yes. many arguments sound familiar!!???

>>>>>>>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their
>>>>>>>>> seatbelt fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Glad I could clear this up for you.

You are welcome.
Joe English - 24 Apr 2007 03:22 GMT
>>> If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
>>>kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> get to drive the original cars? No you don't. Why? Even though they could be
> operated safely then, they can not conform to changing safety issues.

They can still be driven - they just aren't what people want

>>Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
>>fastened?  Me neither.
>
>   Then why are there laws that force you to wear them?

$$$$$$$  No other reason if it was about safety motorcyclist would be
required to wear helmets

>>>Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
>>>cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Sure you would.

My guns are safe

>>I've had guns of my own since I was 6.  So far, nobody hurt,
>>accidentally or otherwise.  No mass murders, no robberies, no
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> with anything. More lame repies. Why not outlaw Knives, ya. I know hard it
> is to make a point.

driving is a privledge - gun ownership is a right granted by the 2nd
amendment
User - 24 Apr 2007 12:29 GMT
>>>> If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to
>>>> kill people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> They can still be driven - they just aren't what people want

Exactly the point. Look at the cars that are driven now. Do you think the
public has much to say in the making and design. People are not driving the
cars they would care to drive. They are forced to use what is available.

>>> Seen anyone kill anyone else because they didn't have their seatbelt
>>> fastened?  Me neither.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> $$$$$$$  No other reason if it was about safety motorcyclist would be
> required to wear helmets

They are in most states. You really should get out more. Do you remember
Gary Busey?  LOL   That bonehead used to complain constantly about wearing a
helmit until he almost lost his head in a bike crash. Now he is one of the
biggest helmit advocate.  Some fool, Hey.

Thanks for allowing a little bitch slapping.  LOL

>>>> Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The
>>>> cost would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> My guns are safe

So was your head until it almost fell off in that bike accedent.

>>> I've had guns of my own since I was 6.  So far, nobody hurt,
>>> accidentally or otherwise.  No mass murders, no robberies, no
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> driving is a privledge - gun ownership is a right granted by the 2nd
> amendment

The generic default reply. "From my cold dead hand". Cars kill
more....................
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Apr 2007 03:02 GMT
> >>>  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
> >>>> to carry guns.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>   If someone makes a product that repeatedly gets used in crimes to kill
> people then why not locks? This has been an issue for years but no one cares

Cars and acohol are regularly used in crimes (vehicular homicide, drunk
driving, getaways from other crimes)

> about real safety. If someone made a vehicle that could be miss used it
> would be changed as would anything else. You know the issues and you know

Well....a vehicle can still be driven by a driver under the influence of
either alcohol, drugs, or even intense cell phone conversations with one's
SO.

> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed by some
> that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.

Its the whole choice thing. They might consider talking to Corzine (NJ
governor) about seat belt use though.
've heard hes now taking solid food.

>  Making safer guns is the best way to clean up all the issues. The cost
> would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the lobby or the users
> that's for sure.

They're already pretty safe. They don't go off by themselves.
They don't aim themselves. Ammunition is pretty reliable.
With rifling, its pretty likely that the bullet will strike where the gun is
aimed, and not anwhere within a 180 degree arc.

Dennis
User - 24 Apr 2007 12:53 GMT
>>>>>  You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>>>> to carry guns.
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> of either alcohol, drugs, or even intense cell phone conversations
> with one's SO.

Not for long.  Science is catching up.  You can't even start a car if you
are drunk if science is applied.

>> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed
>> by some that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Dennis
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Apr 2007 13:51 GMT
<snip>

> > Cars and acohol are regularly used in crimes (vehicular homicide,
> > drunk driving, getaways from other crimes)
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>  Not for long.  Science is catching up.  You can't even start a car if you
> are drunk if science is applied.

So you'll now require etierh a blood alcohol test or breathalyzer?
A breathalyzer works by someone blowing into a tube, right?
How do you guarantee that what's blowing into the tube is actually the
driver's breath?
A small fan blowing air into the tube would seem like an exhalation, right?
:-)

And how are you going to stop the vehicular homicides?
:-)

> >> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed
> >> by some that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > With rifling, its pretty likely that the bullet will strike where the
> > gun is aimed, and not anwhere within a 180 degree arc.

So I take it you're conceding that firearms are, in fact, pretty darned
safe?

> > Dennis
User - 24 Apr 2007 14:56 GMT
> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> And how are you going to stop the vehicular homicides?
> :-)

I have heard all the positions. The same can be said about a gun owner. He
can decide to become a criminal and allow his gun to be used by someone
else. There are many scientific ways to improve all safety issues.  Who do
you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone manufacturers
of anything I know. This is the same old story with the right. They are
against making anything safe or better if it affect the bottom line of the
big business that is represented. This is all to obvious as the right would
move manufacturing to another country and undo safety regs that the left has
put into place.

These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make the
connection.

>>>> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still
>>>> claimed by some that their mandatory use is taking away their
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> So I take it you're conceding that firearms are, in fact, pretty
> darned safe?

Sure. I think they are safe. I am just trying to counter the cries for more
guns. That is all I have ever done. That and every possible way to prevent
the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject gets
blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever about gun safety
and at the end of the day you will always be asked "Why do you want to take
away my Gun?" by some of those that will never get it.

Where do you stand? Do you care to tell me I am a liberal that you fear and
I "must have never owned a gun" therefor I must be afraid or a criminal?

It is not hard to see who are the slow learners.
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 04:12 GMT
> > <snip>
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
>  I have heard all the positions. The same can be said about a gun owner. He

Ahh..but have you listened?

> can decide to become a criminal and allow his gun to be used by someone
> else. There are many scientific ways to improve all safety issues.  Who do

Well, lets see...I was able to work around one that could prevent drunk
driving in just a few seconds.
Care to enumerate others?

> you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone manufacturers
> of anything I know. This is the same old story with the right. They are
> against making anything safe or better if it affect the bottom line of the
> big business that is represented. This is all to obvious as the right would
> move manufacturing to another country and undo safety regs that the left has
> put into place.

Well...lets see....IIRC you argued that insuring that Cho was the only one
who could shoot his weapons would make folks safer :-)

>  These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make the
> connection.

Because there isn't any?

> >>>> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still
> >>>> claimed by some that their mandatory use is taking away their
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Sure. I think they are safe. I am just trying to counter the cries for more
> guns. That is all I have ever done. That and every possible way to prevent

Just a few posts ago, though, you were adocating that safety should be
improved.

> the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject gets
> blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever about gun safety
> and at the end of the day you will always be asked "Why do you want to take
> away my Gun?" by some of those that will never get it.

Because there are those who want to take away my guns.

>  Where do you stand? Do you care to tell me I am a liberal that you fear and
> I "must have never owned a gun" therefor I must be afraid or a criminal?

Lets see, I'm in favor of the seocnd amendment. Responsible adults should
have the choice as to whether they need to use a firearm or not for their
defense needs.
After all, they know their situation better than some politician several
hundred miles away.

>  It is not hard to see who are the slow learners.

Indeed not.

Dennis

Dennis
User - 25 Apr 2007 04:48 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> drunk driving in just a few seconds.
> Care to enumerate others?

You are a criminal. What makes you different from someone that would steel a
gun? You are not capable of disabling an alcohol detector. It can spell your
sh.t if it wanted to and you would never know. "gee this car must be broke"

>> you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone
>> manufacturers of anything I know. This is the same old story with
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Well...lets see....IIRC you argued that insuring that Cho was the
> only one who could shoot his weapons would make folks safer :-)

I do recall that was what I suggested. If there is a gun that can ID the
owner by his finger print when placed on the trigger I guess you use a fake
a warm finger. But if there was a fool proof method how would a fool
accomplish this?

>>  These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make
>> the connection.
>
> Because there isn't any?

Your snipping has prevented me from knowing what I am expected to reply to.

>>>>>> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still
>>>>>> claimed by some that their mandatory use is taking away their
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Just a few posts ago, though, you were adocating that safety should be
> improved

If the case would be that a new style gun was decided on I would agree. This
new improvement would be safer. In reality understanding this will never
happen I have no other suggestions.

>> the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject
>> gets blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Because there are those who want to take away my guns.

I don't see that as anything to fear. There are many small groups of people
that would try many things. Do you actually think there is a powerful force
that is capable of such a feat? Border line paranoia comes to mind.

>>  Where do you stand? Do you care to tell me I am a liberal that you
>> fear and I "must have never owned a gun" therefor I must be afraid
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> After all, they know their situation better than some politician
> several hundred miles away.

Do you really think there are politicians that get to make laws that are
contrary to their constituents? This must be that government confiscation
that you feel is inevitable.

>>  It is not hard to see who are the slow learners.
>>
> Indeed not.

You still seem to think I care what you do with your gun.
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 06:57 GMT
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> gun? You are not capable of disabling an alcohol detector. It can spell your
> sh.t if it wanted to and you would never know. "gee this car must be broke"

Well I've given ways that its possible (probable?) to get around the
alcohol-brethalyzer system and that nifty "sweat alcohol content" sensor on
the steering wheel.
I mean, it can't analyze that which it doesn't encounter.

> >> you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone
> >> manufacturers of anything I know. This is the same old story with
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> a warm finger. But if there was a fool proof method how would a fool
> accomplish this?

My point in mnetioning Cho is that...well...he was the one whose fingerprint
would have activated the gun.
Think the students at VT would've been safer that such a ssytem been in
place on his guns?

> >>  These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make
> >> the connection.
> >
> > Because there isn't any?
>
> Your snipping has prevented me from knowing what I am expected to reply to.

I didn't snip - I just put my comments inline. Look up to where you're
complaining about how the right is trying to undo all the regs that the left
put into place.
There's your context.

> >>>>>> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still
> >>>>>> claimed by some that their mandatory use is taking away their
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> new improvement would be safer. In reality understanding this will never
> happen I have no other suggestions.

So the manufacturers should be held liable for an unsafe product that othger
folks use to kill, but have no suggestions as to how this additional safety
can be accomplished?

> >> the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject
> >> gets blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> that would try many things. Do you actually think there is a powerful force
> that is capable of such a feat? Border line paranoia comes to mind.

They're not capable, as yet, because they're opposed quite handily.

Many of the gun control folks couch their rhetoric in soft, friendly terms.
"We just want regulation...etc"...you know...kind of liek the antismoking
folks did in the early 70s.
:-)

> >>  Where do you stand? Do you care to tell me I am a liberal that you
> >> fear and I "must have never owned a gun" therefor I must be afraid
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> contrary to their constituents? This must be that government confiscation
> that you feel is inevitable.

Uhm...yes. Happens quite a bit. Sadly, they're still re-elected.

> >>  It is not hard to see who are the slow learners.
> >>
> > Indeed not.
>
> You still seem to think I care what you do with your gun.

Did I say you did?

Dennis
User - 25 Apr 2007 12:29 GMT
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> sensor on the steering wheel.
> I mean, it can't analyze that which it doesn't encounter.

 You think you might be able to disable something that you have no idea how
it works. You have not presented your case very well. If an industry is
going to install a device do you actually think it would be such that anyone
can do what you think is possible?

>>>> you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone
>>>> manufacturers of anything I know. This is the same old story with
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Think the students at VT would've been safer that such a ssytem been
> in place on his guns?

I think I have covered this different issue.

>>>>  These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make
>>>> the connection.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> complaining about how the right is trying to undo all the regs that
> the left put into place.

I am trying real hard to find the statement where I said "all" to anything.
It is a fact that Bush has undone saftey regs that were inplace when he took
office. Do you somehow doubt this?

> There's your context.
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> othger folks use to kill, but have no suggestions as to how this
> additional safety can be accomplished?

. Maybe you should review my position.

If there are safer guns available that properly address the issue and a
manufacture decides not to release that safer gun in spite of safety
standards they should be held to account.

>>>> the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject
>>>> gets blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> They're not capable, as yet, because they're opposed quite handily.

Do you see any progress in the governments attempt to disarm America?

> Many of the gun control folks couch their rhetoric in soft, friendly
> terms. "We just want regulation...etc"...you know...kind of liek the
> antismoking folks did in the early 70s.
> :-)

So you *are* more paranoid than I had imagined.

>>>>  Where do you stand? Do you care to tell me I am a liberal that you
>>>> fear and I "must have never owned a gun" therefor I must be afraid
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Uhm...yes. Happens quite a bit. Sadly, they're still re-elected.

I am still seeing off the scale fear of the most unlikely event.

>>>>  It is not hard to see who are the slow learners.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> Did I say you did?

Your fears seem to indicate such. You seem to fear that I am one that might
care to disarm you so that would mean that you think I do care what you do
with your gun.
Chris Guynn - 25 Apr 2007 16:12 GMT
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> going to install a device do you actually think it would be such that anyone
> can do what you think is possible?

I'll tell you what would work.  Have someone else (who's not drunk) blow into the straw.
User - 25 Apr 2007 17:31 GMT
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> I'll tell you what would work.  Have someone else (who's not drunk)
> blow into the straw.

You have no clue.
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 19:18 GMT
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> going to install a device do you actually think it would be such that anyone
> can do what you think is possible?

Sure.
Here's another. Prior to drinking, breathe into one or more airtight
containers (e.g balloons).
When you want to start the car after a night of binge drinking, open one
balloon.
When it asks again, open the others.

> >>>> you think is on the side of making things better? Not anyone
> >>>> manufacturers of anything I know. This is the same old story with
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>  I think I have covered this different issue.

Yep.

> >>>>  These policies are evident everywhere. You just don't want to make
> >>>> the connection.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It is a fact that Bush has undone saftey regs that were inplace when he took
> office. Do you somehow doubt this?

So which regs would this be? Got an example? Lets make sure we're on the
same page.

> > There's your context.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> manufacture decides not to release that safer gun in spite of safety
> standards they should be held to account.

Who set these "safety standards"?
Is the only safety issue being who can fire the gun?

> >>>> the more tragedy. Just like everyone else. It is when this subject
> >>>> gets blown up that makes it look otherwise. You can talk forever
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>  Do you see any progress in the governments attempt to disarm America?

Yes. Look at California.

> > Many of the gun control folks couch their rhetoric in soft, friendly
> > terms. "We just want regulation...etc"...you know...kind of liek the
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> care to disarm you so that would mean that you think I do care what you do
> with your gun.

And where did I say this? :-)

Dennis
Scott - 26 Apr 2007 02:48 GMT
<chainsaw>

> And where did I say this? :-)

Can you guys trim the f.cking posts?
Dennis (Icarus) - 26 Apr 2007 04:56 GMT
> <chainsaw>
>
> > And where did I say this? :-)
>
> Can you guys trim the f.cking posts?

But when I do that, he then complains about snipping and being unable to
figure out what I'm talking about.
:-)

Dennis
Scott - 26 Apr 2007 09:23 GMT
> But when I do that, he then complains about snipping and being unable to
> figure out what I'm talking about.
> :-)

That has nothing to do with trimming...
Chris Guynn - 25 Apr 2007 16:10 GMT
<snip>

>  I don't see that as anything to fear. There are many small groups of people
> that would try many things. Do you actually think there is a powerful force
> that is capable of such a feat? Border line paranoia comes to mind.

I'm sure that some people in all of the countries that have outlawed guns felt the same way.
User - 25 Apr 2007 16:27 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I'm sure that some people in all of the countries that have outlawed
> guns felt the same way.

Key word is some. Means very little. I still think that anyone that says
they own a gun strictly because they fear at anytime in the future there
will be a revolution or any serious attempt to disarm America and has not
taken other precautions first has to suffer from a serious imbalance. If
these guys don't consider themselves totally nuts then were are the T-shirts
and bumper stickers. I will tell you why. They all actually *know* they are
freaks and would be laughed into outer space. These are more of the
cowardice claims that show how fearful these individuals actually are.
Chris Guynn - 25 Apr 2007 18:23 GMT
> > <snip>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> freaks and would be laughed into outer space. These are more of the
> cowardice claims that show how fearful these individuals actually are.

Perhaps you missed my point.

There were some people in those countries who thought that the government would try to confiscate
their weapons.

Then, their govenrment outlawed guns and, *gasp*, tried to confiscate their weapons.

I've never heard of anyone who owned a gun "strictly because they fear at anytime in the future
there will be a revolution or any serious attempt to disarm America."
User - 25 Apr 2007 19:46 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> fear at anytime in the future there will be a revolution or any
> serious attempt to disarm America."

The whole idea that posting about some commie hole that was successful in
mass supression(One example would be that sh.t hole known as Israel) and
guns banned has little to do with reality in America. If you look a bit you
might just be surprised at the claims gun nuts have made. The oldest is the
one about "the revolution". Something that has become a fiber in the "hand
out guns" movement.  What happens every time that old dead guy gets up there
and cries "from my cold dead hands". The place goes more wild than any
church meeting I have ever heard of.

The second and most common myth is that guns are the only line of defense
and there is some need to have one by your side not understanding that there
actually are safe places where you can live without that ignorant line of
thinking.

NOW.............You see how many freaks respond and try to tell me I an a
scared liberal that has a hidden agenda of wanting to take guns away from
every man and woman in America.
Chris Guynn - 25 Apr 2007 20:43 GMT
<snip>

> > Perhaps you missed my point.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> mass supression(One example would be that sh.t hole known as Israel) and
> guns banned has little to do with reality in America.

You mean a commie hole like, oh, I don't know, Britain?
User - 25 Apr 2007 21:35 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> You mean a commie hole like, oh, I don't know, Britain?

I have never been.  I would enjoy learning more about mass supression of
GB.
Joe English - 26 Apr 2007 13:36 GMT
>>>><snip>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> actually are safe places where you can live without that ignorant line of
> thinking.

We don't believe it is the only line of defense - I do not remember it
ever being posted on rec.scuba  - it was one of a choice of few - many
here chose a gun - and remember it is our choice - you don't want one -
you are not competent to hold one, use on, think guns need to be safer
fine - don't have one - my guns have never accidentally fired, my guns
have never shot anyone

My guns are perfectly safe - they work exactly as they should and having
the guns for protection are MY CHOICE

>  NOW.............You see how many freaks respond and try to tell me I an a
> scared liberal that has a hidden agenda of wanting to take guns away from
> every man and woman in America.
Rich Travsky - 25 Apr 2007 03:50 GMT
> <snip>
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> A small fan blowing air into the tube would seem like an exhalation, right?
> :-)

:-)

http://blogs.automotive.com/1010139/miscellaneous/toyota-nissan-look-to-monitor-
drivers-alcohol-levels/index.html

...
Gone are the days of puffing into the little balloon, if the clever engineers at
Toyota have their way. They've developed sensors on the steering wheel that can
detect alcohol in a driver's bloodstream by analyzing the sweat coming out of the
driver's fingers. Too much alcohol in the blood? The car won't start, then.

And, lest you think that the steering wheel is the only trick up the Toyota boffins'
sleeve, the engineers have also allowed the system to engage if it detects what it
considers abnormal steering or if the driver's pupils are not in focus. If any of
those events occur, the car will be slowed to a stop.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

> And how are you going to stop the vehicular homicides?
> :-)

It would stop deaths from drunk drivers.

> > >> the arguments. Seatbelts were fought for years and are still claimed
> > >> by some that their mandatory use is taking away their rights.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> > > Dennis
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 06:57 GMT
> > <snip>
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> :-)

http://blogs.automotive.com/1010139/miscellaneous/toyota-nissan-look-to-monitor-
drivers-alcohol-levels/index.html

>  ...
>  Gone are the days of puffing into the little balloon, if the clever engineers at
>  Toyota have their way. They've developed sensors on the steering wheel that can
>  detect alcohol in a driver's bloodstream by analyzing the sweat coming out of the
>  driver's fingers. Too much alcohol in the blood? The car won't start, then.

What about driving gloves? No sweaty hands on the steering wheel.

>  And, lest you think that the steering wheel is the only trick up the Toyota boffins'
>  sleeve, the engineers have also allowed the system to engage if it detects what it
>  considers abnormal steering or if the driver's pupils are not in focus. If any of
>  those events occur, the car will be slowed to a stop.
>
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Hmm....so swerve to avoid an obstacle in the road, and the car decides to
slow you to a stop, in what might be a freeway.
And you think that's safer?
:-)

> > And how are you going to stop the vehicular homicides?
> > :-)
>
> It would stop deaths from drunk drivers.

So your answer is that cars could still be used to kill other folks.
Check.

Dennis
Rich Travsky - 29 Apr 2007 05:13 GMT
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > "User" <user22135@aol.con> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> What about driving gloves? No sweaty hands on the steering wheel.

More than one effect is tested for.

> >  And, lest you think that the steering wheel is the only trick up the
> Toyota boffins'
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Hmm....so swerve to avoid an obstacle in the road, and the car decides to

A drunk driver's erratic driving would not resemble a mere sudden swerve.

> slow you to a stop, in what might be a freeway.
> And you think that's safer?
> :-)

What, aren't you going to propose wearing sunglasses to defeat the pupil sensor?

Yeah, that'll work at night.

> > > And how are you going to stop the vehicular homicides?
> > > :-)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Dennis
-hh - 29 Apr 2007 12:21 GMT
> > [snips]
> > What about driving gloves? No sweaty hands on the steering wheel.
>
> More than one effect is tested for.

The bottom line is that it is still the application of Technology to
try to compensate for a problem that has other fundemental root causes
- - its a band-aid fix instead of prevention.

The next thing we all know, we won't be able to go into the doughnut
shop and buy a dozen, because doughnuts cause obesity (death), heart
disease (more death), etc.

We'll be issued a "waiting permit" and only be allowed to buy 1
doughnut per day and no more than 6 doughnuts per month.

The real tragedy in the VT incident is that we are *still* incapable
of admitting to where our soeciety's problems are and work to find a
realistic, fair, equitable and legally sound approach that benefits
all of Society as a whole, which also means protection of Society's
freedoms.  It is very easy to make everyone "safe" from everything by
locking everyone up in their own 6x6 grey prison cell.  However, are
you really willing to pay that cost in freedom to merely assure your
safety?  Maybe Rich here is, but he doesn't have the right to dictate
my choice.

And the whole gun control issue is a Red Herring:  this basic
principle applies to everything and all of our choices - from deciding
if cars should be allowed (risk of a DUI), to if public lands can have
have hiking trails on them (risk of a fall off a cliff), to the foods
we buy (risk of death from obesity), to even what religions we choose
to practice.

We generally can expect and accept some degree of protective "Nanny"
until we are responsible adults.  The only real question is when do we
expect this to generally occur?  Age 15?  Age 18?  Age 21?  Age 75?

-hh
Rod - 29 Apr 2007 15:13 GMT
>> > [snips]
>> > What about driving gloves? No sweaty hands on the steering wheel.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
>-hh

No the real tragedy at VT is now the little sh.ts won't pay back their
student loans and the rest of us will have to have higher taxes to pay
for it cause a lefty is gonna get elected and we all know they never
heard of a tax they didn't embrace
Rod - 29 Apr 2007 15:14 GMT
<snip>

This is gross generalization Sunday right ?
Wayne H. Wilhelm - 28 Apr 2007 15:14 GMT
>> <snip>
>> > >
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> driver's fingers. Too much alcohol in the blood? The car won't start,
> then.

Wear gloves.

> And, lest you think that the steering wheel is the only trick up the
> Toyota boffins'
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> any of
> those events occur, the car will be slowed to a stop.

So a person with a lazy eye would be banned from driving?  My wife went to
an eye doctor last week and was told that if she ever got pulled over for
dui (she doesn't drink alcohol), she'd fail the eye test because her eyes
don't move in synchroniztion.

For those of you who want figure print control, what happens if I stop at a
house on fire, rescue the inhabitants, but severely burn my fingers?  No
finger print control, I can't start my car (no one can) to go for medical
treatment.  Not everyone lives in the city folks.

> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>
>> > > Dennis
Warren - 28 Apr 2007 17:05 GMT
Wayne H. Wilhelm wwilhelm@neonospam.rr.com said:
> > Gone are the days of puffing into the little balloon, if the clever
> > engineers at
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Wear gloves.

Cars kill people and so do guns, which means that cars are guns.

The gun lobby says so.
Rich Travsky - 29 Apr 2007 07:08 GMT
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >> "User" <user22135@aol.con> wrote in message
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Wear gloves.

And sunglasses? That'll work good at night...

> > And, lest you think that the steering wheel is the only trick up the
> > Toyota boffins'
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> dui (she doesn't drink alcohol), she'd fail the eye test because her eyes
> don't move in synchroniztion.

She should carry something from the doctor attesting to that.

> For those of you who want figure print control, what happens if I stop at a
> house on fire, rescue the inhabitants, but severely burn my fingers?  No
> finger print control, I can't start my car (no one can) to go for medical
> treatment.  Not everyone lives in the city folks.

What would fingerprints have to do with detecting an inebriated driver?

> > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> >
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> >> So I take it you're conceding that firearms are, in fact, pretty darned
> >> safe?
Joe English - 24 Apr 2007 03:13 GMT
>>>> You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> would be a complaint that shows who really cares. Not the lobby or the users
> that's for sure.

There are locks on cars - what car thieves does it stop?

There are locks on houses - does it stop a burglary?

My guns are for protection not offense - if I lock them they are of no
use to me - no thanks - just punish - severely - those that misuse them
Wayne H. Wilhelm - 24 Apr 2007 07:50 GMT
>>>>> You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> My guns are for protection not offense - if I lock them they are of no use
> to me - no thanks - just punish - severely - those that misuse them

Back in the 1950's and early 1960's, I could drive to town, park my car at
the local grocery store, leave the windows down and the keys in the
ignition.  No one would touch it.  If I left my guns on a gun rack in the
back of my pickup, without locks on the triggers, no one cared.  When I left
my home, even if for weeks at a time, I would never dream of locking the
doors.

What has changed since then that I must lock everything up no matter where I
am, that I must lock the doors to my home even when I'm at home, that locks
must be placed over triggers on guns I own?  Things are so bad that if a
trespasser trips over his own two feet while crossing my property, the
courts state I'm liable for his injuries?

You guys have some very seriously misplaced notions.

According to liberals, identifying criminals requires profiling and
profiling is wrong, therefore you must blame someone else.  From my notion,
if the shoe fits, wear it.  If someone objects to profiling, I want to know
what they're hiding.

I still maintain, if a criminal spends 5 years in prison, their time is up.
No appeals, immediate termination.  5 years and you're out.  Of course, I
realize this means thousands of prison employees would be out of a job, but
just think what it would do to the criminal population.  And the same would
apply to me if I were ever sentenced to prison for more than 5 years.  Of
course, liberals would argue disenfranchisement against blacks.  A criminal
is a criminal, regardless of color, race or creed.
User - 24 Apr 2007 12:48 GMT
>>>>>> You talk about allowing kiddies and mental institute occupants
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
>
> You guys have some very seriously misplaced notions.

 Guns that can only be fired by one person will allow you to be more safe.
Tell me what you se wrong with this? No unlocking. No key. Just pick it up
and shoot.

> According to liberals, identifying criminals requires profiling and
> profiling is wrong, therefore you must blame someone else.  From my
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> disenfranchisement against blacks.  A criminal is a criminal,
> regardless of color, race or creed.

Your plan here is not good. If I want to commit a crime I can sit back and
ask is it worth only 5 years? Maybe it is.
Dennis (Icarus) - 24 Apr 2007 13:51 GMT
<snip>

> > You guys have some very seriously misplaced notions.
>
>   Guns that can only be fired by one person will allow you to be more safe.
> Tell me what you se wrong with this? No unlocking. No key. Just pick it up
> and shoot.

So if Cho at VT was the only person who could fire his two firearms, then
the students at VT would have been more safe?
That is a logical deduction from what you're saying. :-)

<snip>

Dennis
User - 24 Apr 2007 14:42 GMT
> <snip>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> <snip>

 There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as easy as
some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a gun. If they don't
like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads. Another
solution says if only others had guns they could just kill the bad guy and
everything will be fine. They think these are all workable and quick fixes.
When you ask about details they freeze. They then start asking the same lame
questions. "Why do you want to take away my Guns?"  "you must be a commie
liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The "shoot them
now and let God sort them out. Just to much information to process.
Chris Guynn - 24 Apr 2007 22:50 GMT
>   There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as easy as
> some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a gun. If they don't
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The "shoot them
> now and let God sort them out. Just to much information to process.

Okay, I'm all ears.  Explain your solution.
User - 24 Apr 2007 23:17 GMT
>>   There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as
>> easy as some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a gun.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Okay, I'm all ears.  Explain your solution.

I said it was not easy to find a solution. This is why there are c so many
debates. I would not say having less guns in any environment is a good idea.
I think everything is as good as you can get but for that one issue about
not allowing sane people access to guns. I am not in favor of easy access to
private medical information. I have head mention of this data be allowed to
pass through certain "qualified" bodies of government but I still wonder if
this is a good plan. Maybe an ID card or drivers license that is marked to
indicate ownership privileges that are not specified. If you have a record
of are ill no one would know anything. Is it reasonable to indicate a
generic status of qualification that would not result in any other changes
or more regulations within a background check?

Do you have anything to offer in this regard or do you stand by the idea of
a better armed public. I am not against this is proper education was
mandated and monitored.
Chris Guynn - 25 Apr 2007 16:03 GMT
> >>   There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as
> >> easy as some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a gun.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> a better armed public. I am not against this is proper education was
> mandated and monitored.

In "the States", to receive a concealed handgun license, you must show proficiency with a weapon and
show knowledge of all applicable laws.  I would guess that the certification training oftentimes
involves different topics of gun safety.  I don't know that it's mandadted as such, but it would
make sense to include it.

What more do you want?
User - 25 Apr 2007 17:34 GMT
>>>>   There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as
>>>> easy as some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> What more do you want?

What more do you have?
Danlw - 26 Apr 2007 04:56 GMT
Hey Chris, keep in mind that most "Users" are "pushers"
too.  Was it Lightfootsaid that?  ;)  Dan
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 04:01 GMT
> > <snip>
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>   There is no simple solution. It would be so nice if it were as easy as
> some of the simple minded nuts suggest. Give everyone a gun. If they don't

You mean like "Guns that can only be fired by one person will allow you to
be
more safe. Tell me what you se wrong with this? No unlocking. No key. Just
pick it up and shoot."?

> like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads. Another
> solution says if only others had guns they could just kill the bad guy and
> everything will be fine. They think these are all workable and quick fixes.
> When you ask about details they freeze. They then start asking the same lame
> questions. "Why do you want to take away my Guns?"  "you must be a commie

It is a fair question of those who advocate confiscation.

> liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The "shoot them
> now and let God sort them out. Just to much information to process.

Dennis
User - 25 Apr 2007 05:20 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> more safe. Tell me what you se wrong with this? No unlocking. No key.
> Just pick it up and shoot."?

Works fine. You need an explaination?

>> like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads.
>> Another solution says if only others had guns they could just kill
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> It is a fair question of those who advocate confiscation.

Then I can assume you are one that has that fear?

>> liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The "shoot
>> them now and let God sort them out. Just to much information to
>> process.
>
> Dennis
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 06:57 GMT
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>  Works fine. You need an explaination?

No, it doesn't work. As I pointed out earlir, if such a system were engaged,
Cho would still have been shooting his fellow students.

> >> like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads.
> >> Another solution says if only others had guns they could just kill
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> >
>  Then I can assume you are one that has that fear?

Justifiable caution based on pronouncements from some of the politicians.

> >> liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The "shoot
> >> them now and let God sort them out. Just to much information to
> >> process.
> >
> > Dennis
User - 25 Apr 2007 12:00 GMT
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> No, it doesn't work. As I pointed out earlir, if such a system were
> engaged, Cho would still have been shooting his fellow students.

I thought we were discussing gun safety in general. The Cho issue is
different. I have posted about this several times. Possibly in this very
thread.  Maybe you should try to catch up. I get a bit tired of the silly
ban the knife and ban all cars every time someone brings up any gun issues.
Sort of like the seat belt freaks that think they have some right to be
stupid.

I have suggested a fire arms card that can be flagged if a record of bad
behavior is detected. Bad behavior and silliness can be logged and displayed
without specifics.

>>>> like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads.
>>>> Another solution says if only others had guns they could just kill
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Justifiable caution based on pronouncements from some of the
> politicians.

If you had a true sense of reality I don't think you would be all that
concerned about bills you seem to know little about. The whole idea is
absurd to think there is enough political power and both sides would allow
this to occur. IOW you seem to have a bit of a problem not unlike many other
gun nuts. Big Bad Government confiscation is about as likely as an invasion.
Do you have a bomb shelter? Do you story large quantities of fresh water? Do
you have a dirty bomb detector? There are many things I would be concerned
about before I went nuts over my gun and holster set.

>>>> liberal" all this because they choose to remain ignorant. The
>>>> "shoot them now and let God sort them out. Just to much
>>>> information to process.
>>>
>>> Dennis
Dennis (Icarus) - 25 Apr 2007 19:06 GMT
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Sort of like the seat belt freaks that think they have some right to be
> stupid.

Well, perhaps if folks would not talk about banning guns as being the
answer, others would not bring up banning knives and cars to illustrate the
absurdity of the argument.

>  I have suggested a fire arms card that can be flagged if a record of bad
> behavior is detected. Bad behavior and silliness can be logged and displayed
> without specifics.

We already have criminal background checks. These can also include
involuntary committments to mental institutions.
Gun control act 1968.

> >>>> like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads.
> >>>> Another solution says if only others had guns they could just kill
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>  If you had a true sense of reality I don't think you would be all that
> concerned about bills you seem to know little about. The whole idea is

So which bill do you think I'm concerned about?
:-)

> absurd to think there is enough political power and both sides would allow
> this to occur. IOW you seem to have a bit of a problem not unlike many other

Talk to the fplks in California. The .50 calibre BMG has been banned.

> gun nuts. Big Bad Government confiscation is about as likely as an invasion.

I'm sure thats what the folks in the Weimar republic thought too.

> Do you have a bomb shelter? Do you story large quantities of fresh water? Do
> you have a dirty bomb detector? There are many things I would be concerned
> about before I went nuts over my gun and holster set.

Dennis
Joe English - 26 Apr 2007 13:17 GMT
>  I have suggested a fire arms card that can be flagged if a record of bad
> behavior is detected. Bad behavior and silliness can be logged and displayed
> without specifics.

We have that it many places - in Illinois it is a FOID card - the
government can pull it for a variety of reasons - it doesn't get pulled
enough

>>>>>like the idea then you must pound it into their cowardly heads.
>>>>>Another solution says if only others had guns they could just kill
>>>>>the bad guy and everything will be fine. They think these are all
>>>>>workable and quick fixes. When you ask about details they freeze.
>>>>>They then start asking the same lame questions. "Why do you want to
>>>>>take away my Guns?"  "you must be a commie

that has been the modus operandi of repressive governments and a direct
violation of our constitution - if we cede that right - what does our
government take away next - freedom of speech, religion, the right to
keep our property?
Wayne H. Wilhelm - 28 Apr 2007 14:55 GMT
>>  I have