$1500 Cash Reward

Mxsmanic wrote:


Like guns, and erections, both of which often go together.

That sort of comment illustrates your prejudice and ignorance.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:58:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

I carry one most everywhere I go,

and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
vicinity.

That is why we don't advertise the fact that we are carrying. It is
better to keep some things private. You won't know until I need to
defend myself.

If having the choice I won't be near *any* weapons. So it would be a good
thing to know.
Let's say (for the sake of an example) we'd meet and you invite me back to
your home for coffee. I won't feel easy knowing that you have weapons at
your home. Most likely I'd politely excuse myself for your generous
invitation to your home (given the fact that you inform me about your
weapons). Note: this is nothing personal against you as I don't know you.

Matt



http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ss...te?NEPB&coll=7

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:

Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
"victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
gang or drug related violence here.

So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would have
carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?



Yes, and the folks on 9/11 would have had a better chance if they also we allowed to carry...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
chris wrote:
On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message

...

Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
shoot him if he comes at you???

It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
in a population of 60m.

I thought you said you had such strict gun control - how did you manage 58
killed?

BTW, you might know that the manner in which the UK keeps statistics is a
downright fraud.

And England had fewer gun killings when the had virtually ZERO gun control.

Go figure

Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer deaths
than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.

Now, just because YOU have criminal tendencies doesn't mean every one else
does.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:


Like guns, and erections, both of which often go together.

That sort of comment illustrates your prejudice and ignorance.

As opposed to every other comment he makes?

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:

Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
"victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
gang or drug related violence here.

So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would have
carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?

I don't know what kontiki meant to say, but I say, yes, it would have
been a great idea. It would have been great also if the police and
others had acted on the fairly ample evidence that existed that
suggested these two were planning something tragic. However, the
reality is that the police can't be everywhere and prevent everything.
Had there been armed teachers and administration at Columbine or, more
recently, VT, the perpetrators would not have gotten far and these would
not rank as two of the greatest tragedies in America.

Matt

Bob Noel wrote:
In article . com,
chris wrote:

There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
weapon.

so you admit that carrying a deadly weapon is indeed one way to
defend yourself.


I've yet to see Chris list any other ways.

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:03:48 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.

I don't know about NZ, but our country has waaaay less criminals,
shootings, lower overall crime-rate than - let's say - New York City or Los
Angeles (might be the same number of people, about 8 or 9 million).

We also don't have shootings at schools or universities, we don't need
security checks at school entrances.

So what is the difference?

I don't know. I don't live where you live or know much about it. We
don't have much crime where I live either and at least every other
person is armed according to the latest statistics I've seen. I don't
know what drives a person to commit violence like this. I don't know
what drives a person to commit suicide bombing either.

Matt

Chris wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
chris wrote:
On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message

...

Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
shoot him if he comes at you???
It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns in
a population of 60m.

Using this forum's normal measure of extrapolation based on population size
(usually done in respect of pilot certificates etc) we might expect the US
death rate to be about 5 times greater at about 290 deaths in the year.

But then with guns making everyone so safe perhaps that should reduce by
half the number of deaths to 185.

The US by contrast saw 29,569 people killed by gunfire in 2004, a staggering
81/day. (Source: Centre for Disease Control) (sic). Certainly a statistic to
be proud of?

With those odds perhaps everyone should be armed.

Go figure.

Yes, the US is a little higher than the UK, but not that far apart on
the world scale. And the UK is quite a bit higher that Switzerland
where I understand a rather large percentage of the population is armed.
Go figure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita


And this map shows the UK as 6th in the world overall in crime rates.
I'll admit to being surprised that the US isn't on this list.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...ime-rates.html


The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell me
again how great things are in the UK...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...e-total-crimes


I lived and worked in the UK for several months. How long have you
lived and worked in the US? Personally, I found the UK a nice place to
visit, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Taxed to death,
regulated to death, etc. I guess once you become beaten down and used
to servitude, maybe folks stop resisting. The American ethic is simply
different in this regard.


Matt

chris wrote:

I see.. I sort of thought if you sat in your car the police can't see
if you've got a weapon on you until they're right up to your window
but if you get out and stand up they can see your hands are empty. Or
am I talking crap again?


You might be wearing a suicide bomb belt. That is far more fearsome
than a handgun.

Matt