 |
 | 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 / June 2007More gun control legislation in action
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/vancouver_guns_0704 28/20070428?hub=TopStories > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/vancouver_guns_0704 28/20070428?hub=TopStories "But...but...but...we spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS!" :-) It's articles like this that put the -FUTILE- in "-FUTILE- John Francis". Imagine all those nightsweats wasted on Barrett Terror when the guy in the high rise down the street might have high explosives and a belt-fed, crew-served, tripod mounted heavy machinegun. I haven't felt like warm fuzzies this since the two Germanys were re-united. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/vancouver_guns_0704 28/20070428?hub=TopStories > "But...but...but...we spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS!" :-) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I haven't felt like warm fuzzies this since the two Germanys were > re-united. Unfortunately, more VT's are on the way. As long as punks like Francis and Nisarel harbor and forward the idea that legislation will make good people safe, they enable, support and arm the bad guys. Compound the ignorance with their self serving bigoted diatribe that they are better, more educated or somehow superior to others and you have the recipe for societal disaster after disaster. Sounds good to the slacks and expensive coffee crowd. The reality of the world doesn't support their circle jerk. See Idi Amin, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, OBL, ad infinitum (just off the top) Plus, not a one of these cuntbubbles served or gives a sh.t for those wo do/have. > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/vancouver_guns_0704 28/20070428?hub=TopStories >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Plus, not a one of these cuntbubbles served or gives a sh.t for those wo > do/have. Here's a suggestion, they have determined that both the last two "shooters" were insane. So, let's pass a law BANNING INSANE PEOPLE. Yeah, that's it--works so well for, well, about everything that has been banned. We could also have a "War on Guns" run by those who brought us the "War on Drugs". Wait, cocaine prices are way down on the street, per even the "Mass Media", so guess those wars aren't working out so well either > Here's a suggestion, they have determined that both the last two "shooters" > were insane. So, let's pass a law BANNING [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > down on the street, per even the "Mass Media", so guess those wars aren't > working out so well either <this is for the room> Criminal dont obey laws, which is why we call them criminals. Finding a belt fed .50 machine gun, and explosives, in that bastion of reasonability that is Canada is simply a supernova of an example to the idiots that think they can legislate safety. rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> stuttered: > Criminal dont obey laws, which is why we call them criminals. Scotty goes for Kleck's "The Overmotivated Criminal" Fallacy. "Like noncriminals, however, criminals do many things that are casually or only weakly motivated. Indeed, much crime is impulsive or opportunistic, with criminals committing some crimes only if it requires little effort and entails little risk. Gun control is less likely to have much effect on crime committed by criminals with the strongest and most persistent motivation to commit crimes, such as drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, or political assassins. However, it is not all impossible for crime prevention efforts to be achieved among the more weakly or temporarily motivated criminals who make up the large part of the active offender population." Gary Kleck, Targetting Guns  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Like noncriminals, however, criminals do many things that are > casually or only weakly motivated. Indeed, much crime is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > temporarily motivated criminals who make up the large part of > the active offender population." Gary Kleck, Targetting Guns Yep. As I've stated many times before: when only cops and professional criminals have guns, we'll all be a lot safer. >> "Like noncriminals, however, criminals do many things that are >> casually or only weakly motivated. Indeed, much crime is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> temporarily motivated criminals who make up the large part of >> the active offender population." Gary Kleck, Targetting Guns > Yep. As I've stated many times before: when only cops and > professional criminals have guns, we'll all be a lot safer. You mean drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, and political assassins as described in the quoted text? I think that's a great idea. I think you, and the Brady campaign should based your entire anti gun approach on that concept. I'm sure everyone will agree except, of course, for the politicians. They might have a bit of trouble with promoting guns in the hands of political assassins. Lee. > > Yep. As I've stated many times before: when only cops and > > professional criminals have guns, we'll all be a lot safer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > everyone will agree except, of course, for the politicians. They might have > a bit of trouble with promoting guns in the hands of political assassins. If you could understand the article, you'd understand that it's claiming that only those members of the listed group are dedicated enough to pursue the ownership of firearms if a gun ban were in place, or they already have their guns and wouldn't relinquish them as easily as the rest of you when we come to confiscate. No one is promoting guns. They're unfortunately already a sad fact of life. The rest of the lot: low class criminals, gang bangers, wife beaters, drunk rednecks, workplace psychos, etc., wouldn't bother with the additional expense and hassle of getting a gun, and would resort to less lethal utensils such as butcher knives, ice picks, and salad forks. Many, given the choice of using a gun vs. a knife would choose not to do anything at all since it's obviously a lot harder to commit most crimes with a knife instead of a gun. Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> noted: > Many, given the choice of using a gun vs. a knife would > choose not to do anything at all since it's obviously a lot > harder to commit most crimes with a knife instead of a gun. One of the gunhuggers will come along and claim otherwise. They'll probably go for the 'you're just as dead from a knife as from a gun' fallacy. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> > Yep. As I've stated many times before: when only cops and >> > professional criminals have guns, we'll all be a lot safer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> have >> a bit of trouble with promoting guns in the hands of political assassins. > If you could understand the article, you'd understand that it's > claiming that only those members of the listed group are dedicated > enough to pursue the ownership of firearms if a gun ban were in place, > or they already have their guns and wouldn't relinquish them as easily > as the rest of you when we come to confiscate. No one is promoting > guns. They're unfortunately already a sad fact of life. Not unless you're talking about an article other than the one you quoted. I ask you again, is your proposal that the only people other than cops that should have guns should be drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, and political assassins? That is, after all, what you said, right? Think about it Greg. All those people with guns and not one in the hands of anyone capable of defending the life and property of honest citizens. Perhaps you don't think it's OK to shoot an emotionally disturbed mass murderer to prevent the comission of his chosen crime. I kind of think it's a good idea. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > Perhaps you don't think it's OK to shoot an emotionally > disturbed mass murderer to prevent the comission of his chosen > crime. I kind of think it's a good idea. Just how do you think you are going to determine that someone is "an emotionally disturbed mass murderer" before he starts killing a large number of people, Lee? Once it has started, you haven't prevented anything. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Not unless you're talking about an article other than the one you quoted. > > I ask you again, is your proposal that the only people other than cops that > should have guns should be drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass > murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, and political assassins? That > is, after all, what you said, right? As the end result, yes, that's exactly who will end up with the guns. And that's a much preferred result over the situation today where everyone has a gun. > Think about it Greg. All those people with guns and not one in the hands of > anyone capable of defending the life and property of honest citizens. > Perhaps you don't think it's OK to shoot an emotionally disturbed mass > murderer to prevent the comission of his chosen crime. I kind of think it's > a good idea. You forgot the "other than cops" part. They will have guns in their hands and they, unlike most of the current gun owners, are trained and capable of defending the life and property of honest citizens without causing undue risk to the rest of us. >> I ask you again, is your proposal that the only people other than cops >> that >> should have guns should be drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass >> murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, and political assassins? >> That >> is, after all, what you said, right? > As the end result, yes, that's exactly who will end up with the guns. > And that's a much preferred result over the situation today where > everyone has a gun. Like I said before. Please feel free to base your entire argument on that point. You'll make it much easier for us to protect our right to defend ourselves. We've said, over and over, that the only way a gun ban will work is if every gun can be banned. You have now acknowledge not only that it's not likely to happen, but that the people that will not disarm, other than the police, are exactly the ones we have said, over and over, that we have the right to defend against. If there is to be a ban, I do not agree to anything short of a total ban. That means the military, the police, the criminals and everyone that crosses the border into our country. Until you can manage that, thanks, but no thanks. I'll retain the right to defend myself and my way of life. >> Think about it Greg. All those people with guns and not one in the hands >> of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > capable of defending the life and property of honest citizens without > causing undue risk to the rest of us. By far the majority of the current gun owners are, in fact, trained. Many, including me, are trained to levels beyond what is provided to the average police officer. I fire a minimum of 100 rounds per week in combat shooting competition. I fire as few as 200 and as many as 800 additional rounds a week in bullseye target shooting. Let me know how many cops you find that shoot 300 to 900 rounds a week, week after week. The police can not and never have been able to protect you against criminals. They aren't even supposed to. They investigate, arrest and prosecute people after the crimes have been committed. How'd they do in the gun free zone at Virginia Tech? Have you missed the fact that the criminal there was one of the classes you prefer be the only non police armed? Do you consider more than 30 college age kids dead to be good support for a general gun ban? Let us know when you've figured out how to ensure a total ban on all weapons. Do us all a favor, start with the bit ones, the weapons of mass destruction. There's no much point in worrying about a gun that might kill a half dozen until you've taken care of the weapons that will kill hundreds of thousands at a time. No rush, just let us know when you've figured out how to do it. Lee Here's Greg's untrained citizen and a couple of those illegal aliens he thinks so highly of. --------------------------------------------- Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, > probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 > year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their > two story home. It's a purely fictional story that never happened. The gunhuggers are passing around a lie and you bit hard. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The gunhuggers are passing around a lie and you bit hard. Prove it. Got a cite? Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: >> "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Prove it. It's not a newspaper story. It's not written in a way that a newspaper would write it. It's written like a gunhugger would write - "12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun". If a 11 year old girl killed two illegal aliens, it would be national news. It doesn't even appear in the local Montana newspapers. It's something that supposedly happened last November but it doesn't appear as a story until a week ago. > Got a cite? Lee doesn't have one, fuckwit. If you read the original source, http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185167 you'll see that the commenters note that it's fake. You fuckwits bit hard on a lie. The gunhuggers will repeat it for years now. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: > Prove it. Got a cite? http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp I predict you fuckwits will ignore this and pretend that Lee didn't post a lie. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I predict you fuckwits will ignore this and pretend that Lee didn't > post a lie. That's hilarious. Lee and/or Scott post something that's already been exposed as BS by Snopes et al. at least once a month. I've never seen a retraction. Don't hold your breath. > > dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Snopes et al. at least once a month. I've never seen a retraction. > Don't hold your breath. It hasn't been exposed as anything by Snopes. It's "unconfirmed". There's a difference between "unconfirmed" and "false" on Snopes. There's a pretty good chance that it is false, but it's still a plausible situation. "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> stuttered: > There's a pretty good chance that it is false, but it's still > a plausible situation. It's false. The person who posted it on Liberty Post has admitted that it is bogus. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Lee and/or Scott post something that's already been exposed as BS by >> Snopes et al. at least once a month. I've never seen a retraction. >> Don't hold your breath. > It hasn't been exposed as anything by Snopes. > It's "unconfirmed". There's a difference between "unconfirmed" and > "false" on Snopes. > There's a pretty good chance that it is false, but it's still a plausible > situation. There's a 100% chance that Greg's "exposed as BS" is bogus. Lee >> > Prove it. Got a cite? >> http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp >> I predict you fuckwits will ignore this and pretend that Lee didn't >> post a lie. > That's hilarious. > Lee and/or Scott post something that's already been exposed as BS by > Snopes et al. at least once a month. I've never seen a retraction. > Don't hold your breath. I think it's pretty funny too, since the cite to prove it is not real specifically states "undetermined." Now in my dictionary, that means it's not known one way or the other. Apparently, in yours, it says something else. Let's try this again. Do you have a cite to show that the story is bogus? Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > Do you have a cite to show that the story is bogus? It figures you'd lack the balls to admit that it's a lie. Read the thread where the bogus story originated. The original poster admits that it's false. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185167 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> > Prove it. Got a cite? > >>http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Let's try this again. Do you have a cite to show that the story is bogus? It's just like trying to prove Bush was AWOL. How do you prove a negative? Like the search for Bush's records, or the search for someone somewhere that remembered Bush serving during the dates in question, Snopes searched and searched and couldn't find anything. Does it make sense to you that such an incident wouldn't be reported by some newspaper somewhere? Out here, the local rags even report traffic accidents when there's a fatality. Surely an attempted murder defended by a minor would get some notice. Heck, they'd probably option it for a TV docudrama. Unless, of course, it simply didn't happen. <snip> > > Let's try this again. Do you have a cite to show that the story is bogus? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Does it make sense to you that such an incident wouldn't be reported > by some newspaper somewhere? I'd expect it would be. Does it make sense to you that that information may not be readily available. Considering the story didn't specify where this particular event transpired, it could be any number of small towns (likely in Montana) where the local paper doesn't offer an online version. As such, it would be extremely difficult to find any information on it whatsoever. This is especially true if you aren't in Montana or thereabouts and/or don't have the time to go searching through the back copies of every small town local paper in Montana. I will concede that it does match many of the warning signs of being an urban legend. That, by itself, doesn't make it one though. > Out here, the local rags even report > traffic accidents when there's a fatality. Surely an attempted murder > defended by a minor would get some notice. Heck, they'd probably > option it for a TV docudrama. Unless, of course, it simply didn't > happen. Or if the story wasn't compelling enough for a docudrama... Or if the family refused to sell the rights to the story... How often do you watch all of the "lawyer" shows? How do you know it wasn't made into a docudrama on one of them? > Does it make sense to you that that information may not be readily available. Considering the story > didn't specify where this particular event transpired, it could be any number of small towns (likely > in Montana) where the local paper doesn't offer an online version. As such, it would be extremely > difficult to find any information on it whatsoever. This is especially true if you aren't in > Montana or thereabouts and/or don't have the time to go searching through the back copies of every > small town local paper in Montana. No, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. > I will concede that it does match many of the warning signs of being an urban legend. That, by > itself, doesn't make it one though. Sure, just because it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken, it could be a black helicopter in disguise. I know the right-wing spiel. You guys take the same attitude toward the obvious warning signs of human-accelerated global warming. > Or if the story wasn't compelling enough for a docudrama... 11-year-old shoots would be attacker? Give me a break. > Or if the family refused to sell the rights to the story... Doesn't prevent it from at least being investigate and reported as news, and such an incident certainly would be. > How often do you watch all of the "lawyer" shows? How do you know it wasn't made into a docudrama > on one of them? Cite? >>Does it make sense to you that that information may not be readily available. Considering the story >>didn't specify where this particular event transpired, it could be any number of small towns (likely [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > spiel. You guys take the same attitude toward the obvious warning > signs of human-accelerated global warming. we are trying to do as you do >>Or if the story wasn't compelling enough for a docudrama... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cite? <snip> > > How often do you watch all of the "lawyer" shows? How do you know it wasn't made into a docudrama > > on one of them? > > Cite? For what? I haven't made any claims that I need to support with a cite. > For what? > > I haven't made any claims that I need to support with a cite. When the lefties ask for a cite, it is because they have painted themselves intractably into a corner. > > For what? > > > I haven't made any claims that I need to support with a cite. > > When the lefties ask for a cite, it is because they have painted themselves > intractably into a corner. There you go again, sniping at me from under someone else's skirt. Why is it you have no problem sniping indirectly, but are too much of a pussy to respond to me directly? If your peabrain could follow the thread, the righties posted a story that was just above proven to be made up. I say "just about proven" because it's practically impossible to prove that something didn't happen. That hardly means I'm painted into a corner. All the righties have to do is show some bare little thread of evidence that the story did actually happen, especially since they're painted into a corner after we've shown that it most assuredly did not happen. That's why I asked for a cite in response to Chris's inane suggestions. One simple little cite to support the existence of such a newsworthy event. Heck, Scott, I can provide several cites to prove that your beloved vet is a sicko that kills animals for the sheer pleasure of it. If a sicko killing animals is newsworthy, certainly there's got to be some mention of an 11-year-old killing criminals. But why waste my breath on you. You're ever too afraid to read what I say. All I can do is once again show you up as the pussy and fool you are. <snip> > That's why I asked for a cite in response to Chris's inane > suggestions. Yeah, it's completely inane to think that a smalltown newspaper might not have a website with a full repository of archived, searchable articles. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, it's completely inane to think that a smalltown newspaper might not have a website with a full > repository of archived, searchable articles. Did the right-wing source cite the smalltown newspaper? Then it would be an easy matter of contacting the newspaper. Or are you suggesting the a smalltown newspaper might not have a telephone either? > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did the right-wing source cite the smalltown newspaper? As I recall, the right-wing source didn't cite its source which was the reason for having to do a search in the first place. That being the case, it'd be pretty tough to spend the time, energy, and resources to call every smalltown newspaper in Montana looking for the paper where this might have been written just so you could put false (or true if it had been true) instead of unconfirmed on a website. > Then it would > be an easy matter of contacting the newspaper. Yep, but that wasn't the case was it? > Or are you suggesting > the a smalltown newspaper might not have a telephone either? "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> sputtered: > As I recall, the right-wing source didn't cite its source It did - "NRA Files" SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> stuttered: > This is especially true if you aren't in > Montana or thereabouts and/or don't have the time to go > searching through the back copies of every small town local > paper in Montana. Lexis/Nexis. No Montana newspaper reported the incident. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >> > Prove it. Got a cite? >> >>http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's just like trying to prove Bush was AWOL. How do you prove a > negative? Darned if I know. I'm not the one that made the claim. If you could not prove it, why did you claim it was false and why did you produce a bogus cite when challanged? Is that what you call honest? > Like the search for Bush's records, or the search for someone > somewhere that remembered Bush serving during the dates in question, > Snopes searched and searched and couldn't find anything. And they, who did the research, clearly stated that it was undetermined. You, on the other hand, who apparently did no research at all, claimed it was false, provided a false cite to support your unfounded conclusion and are now squirming for all you're worth to try to avoid admitting that, once again, you made a mistake. On top of it all, you tried to make me, and others look bad for not admitting an error that you don't even know was one. Not exactly what I'd call ethical. How about you? Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > On top of it all, you tried to make me, and > others look bad for not admitting an error > that you don't even know was one. <snicker> What proof do you have that it happened, Lee? If you weren't such a fuckwit, you'd look at the LibertyPost web page where the lie originated and you'd see that the person who posted it has admitted that it is a lie. It's yet another example that you lack the balls and the honesty to admit your errors. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's yet another example that you lack the balls and the honesty > to admit your errors. Not that I see. He admits that he is able confirm it, but not that the cite is a lie. Of course, by your logic (or lack therof) I suppose that it makes it a lie. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: >> "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > Not that I see. You're another fuckwit who doesn't have the balls to admit an error. > He admits that he is able confirm it, Try posting when you're sober. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> stuttered: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Try posting when you're sober. after your start posting with your brain in gear. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ In rec.scuba, on Thu 03 May 2007 08:56:43p, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > after your start posting with your brain in gear. Does "reverse" count as a gear? "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > Let's try this again. Do you have a cite to show that the > story is bogus? What proof do you have that it happened? SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In rec.scuba, on Thu 03 May 2007 02:13:07p, my child molesting alter ego <nothing of importance, as usual> > It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber > handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old > David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. He used a stolen handgun. Thanks for making my point. Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> stuttered: >> It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen >> 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion >> robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so >> lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. > > He used a stolen handgun. Thanks for making my point. The problem is that none of it actually happened. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In rec.scuba, on Wed 02 May 2007 08:44:59p, Carl Nisarel <hostlbuddha@postmaster.uk.co> wrote: > The problem is that none of it actually happened. And no one on the net knows more about posting lies than me. >>It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber >>handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old >>David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. > > He used a stolen handgun. Thanks for making my point. He robbed two houses, both equipped with guns. He killed one person in one, was killed himself in the second. That's a death chance of 50%, a killing ratio of 1/1. Without guns in houses, his chance of deserved death would be astronomically smaller, and his killing rate n/o. Thanks for voting for not banning guns. Matthias >>>It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber >>>handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks for voting for not banning guns. > Matthias ? >>>>It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber >>>>handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ? Greg give the mathematical explanation why guns should not be banned, though unvoluntarily, and I shed a bit of light on it. Clearer now? Matthias >>>>>It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber >>>>>handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > though unvoluntarily, and I shed a bit of light on it. > Clearer now? yeh close enough > Matthias Matthias Voss <spammat.voss@gmx.de> stuttered: > He robbed two houses, both equipped with guns. > He killed one person in one, was killed himself in the second. > That's a death chance of 50%, a killing ratio of 1/1. It didn't happen. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185167 SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber > >>handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks for voting for not banning guns. > Matthias Matthias gets it. >> It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber >> handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year >> old >> David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. > He used a stolen handgun. Thanks for making my point. Thanks for making mine. He had the gun illegally. A gun ban would not have slowed them down a bit. A gun ban would, however, have ensured the 11 year old would have been at their mercy. I know you consider that the more favorable situation. I wonder if you know how much the majority disagrees with you. Lee "Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> stuttered: > Thanks for making mine. He had the gun illegally. A gun ban > would not have slowed them down a bit. A gun ban would, > however, have ensured the 11 year old would have been at their > mercy. Lee is 'making a point' by using a lie. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In rec.scuba, on Thu 03 May 2007 07:47:47a, Carl Nisarel <hostlbuddha@postmaster.uk.co> wrote: > Lee is 'making a point' by using a lie. I am very familiar with this technique since I use it myself to entice young boys to have sex with me. > >> It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber > >> handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for making mine. He had the gun illegally. He had the gun illegally because he stole it from an irresponsible legal gun owner. That sort of thing won't happen when guns are banned. > A gun ban would not have > slowed them down a bit. Except that he wouldn't have had a gun. > > >> It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber > > >> handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > legal gun owner. That sort of thing won't happen when guns are > banned. So, if you get carjacked, does that make you an irresponsible car owner? If your house gets broken into and stuff gets stolen does that make you an irresponsible stuff owner? That's ludicrous. Here's an idea, why don't we blame the victim for the criminal's action. After all, (in this case) he's dead and can't defend himself. > > A gun ban would not have > > slowed them down a bit. > > Except that he wouldn't have had a gun. The really funny thing is that it didn't matter anyway. They (bad guys) broke into the guy's house and stabbed him to death. The guy had a gun (presumably he couldn't get to it in time to save himself though) and wasn't able to use it. The bad guys stole the gun and picked another house to burgle. Before getting a chance to use the gun stolen in the former crime, the girl killed them with her own (her father's actually, but who's picking nits) gun. If the gun ban you so desperately want to enact were in place, the girl wouldn't have had a way to protect herself. While the bad guys wouldn't have been able to steal the gun in the previous crime, they would still have the knife they used. I sure hope in that case the girl has some kind of martial arts training and a weapon to go with that training or she's toast. > So, if you get carjacked, does that make you an irresponsible car owner? If the owner of a car that is stolen turns out to have negligently secured the car from theft (i.e., leaving it overnight with the keys in the ignition and windows rolled down), it's quite possible he could be held liable if some teenagers take it joyriding. But cars aren't designed to be lethal weapons. Guns are, and they are far more effective and concealable. Just like securing a dangerous animal, an owner of a lethal weapons needs to secure it as well to make sure it doesn't "get out" and hurt someone. > If your house gets broken into and stuff gets stolen does that make you an irresponsible stuff > owner? I don't have any stuff designed to be lethal weapons. A few knives, maybe, but nothing you can't buy OTC at any shopping mall. I doubt a burglar is going to throw my TV at anyone and kill them with it. It's far more likely for stolen guns to be used to perpetuate future crimes, however. There's no denying that even with your right-wing blinders on. > The really funny thing is that it didn't matter anyway. Exactly, because the story was completely fabricated, as Carl was nice enough to point out. >> If your house gets broken into and stuff gets stolen does that make you >> an irresponsible stuff >> owner? > I don't have any stuff designed to be lethal weapons. A few knives, > maybe, but nothing you can't buy OTC at any shopping mall. I don't have any lethal weapons either except, of course, for a few guns that you can buy OTC at many shopping malls. > I doubt a burglar is going to throw my TV at anyone and kill them with it. > It's > far more likely for stolen guns to be used to perpetuate future > crimes, however. Only if the thier gets out of the house alive with it. > > So, if you get carjacked, does that make you an irresponsible car owner? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > animal, an owner of a lethal weapons needs to secure it as well to > make sure it doesn't "get out" and hurt someone. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between being a victim of a carjacking and being a victim of auto theft. > > If your house gets broken into and stuff gets stolen does that make you an irresponsible stuff > > owner? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Exactly, because the story was completely fabricated, as Carl was nice > enough to point out. Probably so. Of course, there's no proof of the fabrication. On the other hand, there's no proof of the authenticity either. > Perhaps you don't understand the difference between being a victim of a carjacking and being a victim of auto theft. Of course I do. The story said the gun was stolen in a home invasion robbery perpetuated by a knife wielder against a gun owner. That's not very likely, but if it did happen and the gun that was stolen couldn't have been in use at the time or it would have been used against the assailant. In the carjacking scenario, however, the car is in use when it's being stolen, rather than being negligently stored as in the gun case. So I used a better analogy of a car being negligently stored, ignoring your attempt at comparing apples to oranges. > Probably so. > > Of course, there's no proof of the fabrication. Of course not. There rarely is proof that something didn't happen because it's darn near impossible to prove. In this case, you'd have to have the author admitting it was a made-up story, and even then some gun nuts would claim the author is now lying and that the story really did happen. > On the other hand, there's no proof of the authenticity either. Usually it's up to someone who claims a certain fact to provide evidence of that fact. Since there's no independent evidence that the incident did happen, even though such an incident would be very newsworthy and would be a matter of public record after the police investigated, we can safely presume that it did not happen. >>Perhaps you don't understand the difference between being a victim of a carjacking and being a victim of auto theft. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > couldn't have been in use at the time or it would have been used > against the assailant. Maybe he had the gun locked and the bullets elsewhere which many of the gungrabbers are entrenched in doing. A locked, unloaded gun is useless as a weapon against any armed intruder In the carjacking scenario, however, the car > is in use when it's being stolen, rather than being negligently stored > as in the gun case. So I used a better analogy of a car being [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > newsworthy and would be a matter of public record after the police > investigated, we can safely presume that it did not happen. > Maybe he had the gun locked and the bullets elsewhere which many of the > gungrabbers are entrenched in doing. A locked, unloaded gun is useless > as a weapon against any armed intruder Although *most* of my firearm collection is locked away in a *very* heavy safe, there's always a couple of loaded guns close to wherever I might be in the house... Of course all the guns in my safe are loaded also, but it would take too long to get to them in a real emergency... Although I store quite a bit of ammo in the safe, I probably also have 500 rounds or any gun that I might have outside of the safe also stored outside of the safe... Better safe (no pun intended) than sorry... "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> stuttered: > Of course, there's no proof of the fabrication. Read the source of the story, dimwit. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. He had guns and it didn't make him safer. Now, because he failed to secure his guns adequately, all the rest of us are less safe. > > So, if you get carjacked, does that make you an irresponsible car owner? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Exactly, because the story was completely fabricated, as Carl was nice > enough to point out. > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, because he failed to secure his guns adequately, all the rest of > us are less safe. Just go down to the local gun shop and arm yourself to the teeth and have all your neighbors do the same and y'all'll be just fine. Make sure one of your family members stays up all night on watch to be on the safe side > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. You're in the DC area, right? That can't happen up there, there's laws against it... > He had guns and it didn't make him safer. Was he there at the time? If not, he's not particularly less safe... > Now, because he failed to secure his guns adequately, all the rest of > us are less safe. Statistically, probably not... It's not like there is a waiting list of potential criminals who don't do anything until they get their firearm allotment... > > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. > > You're in the DC area, right? That can't happen up there, there's > laws against it. 1st degree burglary, theft of a firearm, possessing a stolen firearm, illegal transportation of a stolen firearm, etc. Shall I continue? > 1st degree burglary, theft of a firearm, possessing a stolen firearm, > illegal transportation of a stolen firearm, etc. > > Shall I continue? I disagree with all the charges except the first one... We don't need laws explicitly for firearm related offenses when there are other laws that cover it sufficiently... This sort of thing is just another step on putting the blame on the firearm and not on the person who commited the offense... > > 1st degree burglary, theft of a firearm, possessing a stolen firearm, > > illegal transportation of a stolen firearm, etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on putting the blame on the firearm and not on the person who commited > the offense... They have nothing to do with blaming the firearm. We all know your view on guns and shall not be infringed, this does nothing to infringe anything. These are known in the biz as "enhancements" they are meant to provide stiffer penalty (as it should be) for firearms related crimes. No different than being a drunk driver versus being a drunk driver in a school zone. It should be a more serious crime with a heavier penalty to steal, possess and transport a stolen firearm than to steal, possess and transport a stolen car stereo. The firearm is not charged, convicted or sentenced, the criminal is. > They have nothing to do with blaming the firearm. We all know your view on > guns and shall not be infringed, this does nothing to infringe anything. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The firearm is not charged, convicted or sentenced, the criminal is. I still believe that the punishment for the crime should be the same regardless of what tool was used to facilitate the crime... If there is not a different penalty for using a baseball bat vs using a knife, why should there be one for using a firearm? To do otherwise is one more step down that slippery slope of treating a firearm as different than any other tool and as such, we get closer to the gun banners... I figure that of all the people in this group, at least someone has to stand up for an absolute interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I guess I'm that person... > I still believe that the punishment for the crime should be the same > regardless of what tool was used to facilitate the crime... If there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stand up for an absolute interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and I > guess I'm that person... There is a difference. Jack Greg up for the facts and minutia. I will answer you later, gotta go get Popeye. > There is a difference. > > Jack Greg up for the facts and minutia. Awh, get real... You actually think I would put any value in what a liberal a.s *lawyer* might have to say? <snicker> > I will answer you later, gotta go get Popeye. Oh well... Ya'll drink a few cold ones for me too... Mike Shelley aka Grumman-581 <grumman581@gmail.com> sputtered: > someone has to > stand up for an absolute interpretation of the 2nd Amendment > and I guess I'm that person... You demonstrated that you aren't 'that person' when you left your gun behind during your trip to Toronto, Mikey SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. > > He had guns and it didn't make him safer. Not necessarily. > Now, because he failed to secure his guns adequately, all the rest of > us are less safe. I'm not. That you are, is your choice. Unfortunate that the police didn't protect you. Futile John Francis frequently talks about which one of us is afraid. Which one of us is, do you think, today? > > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Which one of us is, do you think, today? There's hope for all of them... http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=1431:1603 On May 4, 3:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Just today my next door neighbor's house was broken into. Among the > > items stolen were several guns and lots of ammo. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Which one of us is, do you think, today? I'm unarmed as we speak, and hardly shaking in my boots. How about you? JF > I'm unarmed as we speak, and hardly shaking in my boots. How about > you? So, you're saying that the snow has already melted? On May 4, 8:29 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm unarmed as we speak, and hardly shaking in my boots. How about > > you? > > So, you're saying that the snow has already melted? Long gone. I've even had to start cutting the lawn. The parkas are parked for another year. JF > On May 4, 3:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm unarmed as we speak, and hardly shaking in my boots. How about > you? I'm fine, as always, but George seems rather nervous about the populous et al. Maybe a few words of encouragement from you about open handed plate stepper-upping or arming his 14 yr olds with sports implements will help. > I'm fine, as always, but George seems rather nervous about the populous et > al. > > Maybe a few words of encouragement from you about open handed plate > stepper-upping or arming his 14 yr olds with sports implements will help. Or maybe justifying clubbing baby seals to near death with a hakapic, before you skin them alive. On May 4, 9:54 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > On May 4, 3:28 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Maybe a few words of encouragement from you about open handed plate > stepper-upping or arming his 14 yr olds with sports implements will help. Actually, Doug, I'm fine, too. The irony is that the burglars chose the one house on the street known to have guns and avoided the houses with dogs. Hmmmm. > On May 4, 9:54 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the one house on the street known to have guns and avoided the houses > with dogs. Hmmmm. Well, burglars always avoid houses with dogs. Burglars rarely know what's -in- the house, unless it's an inside job (usually the doper kid). But you specifically stated that we were all less safe, and now you're waffling. > Actually, Doug, I'm fine, too. The irony is that the burglars chose > the one house on the street known to have guns and avoided the houses > with dogs. Hmmmm. sh.t. My house has both guns and dogs. And cops that drop in at all hours of the day and night. Now that I think about it, Popeye and I drove around, walked around, moved around all weekend without any firearms on our person. Wonder why... > Now that I think about it, Popeye and I drove around, walked around, moved > around all weekend without any firearms on our person. > Wonder why... Because you're smart enough to know that Cuervo and Colt aren't good companions? Lee > > Now that I think about it, Popeye and I drove around, walked around, moved > > around all weekend without any firearms on our person. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because you're smart enough to know that Cuervo and Colt aren't good > companions? A couple tiny little guys like us are pretty safe in just about any situation, armed or not. >> > Now that I think about it, Popeye and I drove around, walked around, > moved [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A couple tiny little guys like us are pretty safe in just about any > situation, armed or not. Different question, different answer. We're all pretty safe in just about any situation we're likely to find ourselves in. It's the situation we never expected that requires more. As you both know, being prepared does not mean only being prepared for the expected. At any rate, I'm off to the gun shop. I'm mounting a scope on my Colt AR-15 A2 HBAR Sporter and want to take a look at the handle mount they carry. As of now, the ARMS #2 is my first choice. It's going on a prairie dog hunt with me later this year, or sometime next. Nothing's chipped in stone yet. Speaking of which, do either you or Popeye have any thoughts on the practical range of my HBAR with a 1/7 twist, for shooting prairie dogs? While I'm asking, do you have an opinion on a good bolt action rifle for the same task. I'm thinking a Savage Model 12 Varminter Low Profile single shot http://savagearms.com/12VarminterSS.htm in .22-250 so far, but we're having trouble getting information the rifle or the caliber's performance at 500 plus yards and that makes a final decision on caliber kind of difficult.. Lee > >> > Now that I think about it, Popeye and I drove around, walked around, > > moved [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > trouble getting information the rifle or the caliber's performance at 500 > plus yards and that makes a final decision on caliber kind of difficult.. One word. .25/06 Period. http://www.nosler.com/index.php?p=11&b=3&s=84 on the heavy end http://www.cpcartridge.com/25-06P.htm 75gr boat tails on the light end. "We" (just for the "me too" dildos) loaded the Sierra 75 gr boattails to 4300 fps with carefully prepared cases, and each charge was on the spot. No crimp, turned necks; Loaded them into the breach one at a time. Laser beam to 300 yards, I mean a quarter. The Savage rifles are kinda OK/decent out of the box, but if you want to build a tackdriver, you need to start with an M77. We dump the barrel, stock and trigger ("we" can make the stock trigger work, but there are options), and you have to know somebody that can square the bolt faces and receiver (and you do). $1,500 or so and you have a rifle that will teach you how to shoot. Mine would print a 5 round group that you could cover with a dime. Or, you can drop $1700 to $8000 for the other sh.t. Get to work in a Chevy or a Lexus. > One word. .25/06 Period. Leave it to you to pick a 30-06 case full of powder, shoulder breaker, that cost over $1 a shot with factory ammunition. I did mention we might shoot as many as 1,000 rounds a day, right? > "We" (just for the "me too" dildos) loaded the Sierra 75 gr boattails to > 4300 fps with carefully prepared cases, and each charge was on the spot. > No crimp, turned necks; Loaded them into the breach one at a time. > Laser beam to 300 yards, I mean a quarter. I'll bet they were specially prepared cases. That's the best part of 1,000 fps faster than anything in the reloading manuals and those will beat your shoulder to death long before I'd be ready to quit shooting something more reasonable. I like boattails and expect them to consistently outshoot anything without one. It doesn't hurt that the reduced contact area reduces friction and increases muzzle velocity. > The Savage rifles are kinda OK/decent out of the box, but if you want to > build a tackdriver, you need to start with an M77. > We dump the barrel, stock and trigger ("we" can make the stock trigger > work, > but there are options), and you have to know somebody that can square the > bolt faces and receiver (and you do). So, the only things you retain are the chamber and a bolt that you modify. Hardly something I'd call a Ruger by the time you're finished. We picked the Savage both for its out of the box accuracy, for the AccuTrigger and, last and least, for the cost. The most expensive one goes for less than $800 street price. The 26 inch fluted barrel reportedly maintains its zero even when hot and, thanks to the fluting, dissipates heat faster than the bull barrel models, or so the story goes. > Mine would print a 5 round group that you could cover with a dime. Cool. Sell me yours and build yourself a new one. Just make sure the chamber is still tight and the barrel still has some rifling in it. At pressures, speeds and temperatures like you're talking about, a gun really takes a beating. I considered the 25-06 and kind of passed on it. It's my shoulder that will be beat to a pulp. On your recommendation, I'll put it back on the list. Lee > > One word. .25/06 Period. > Leave it to you to pick a 30-06 case full of powder, shoulder breaker, that > cost over $1 a shot with factory ammunition. I did mention |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message