$1500 Cash Reward

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

snip - clueless nonsense

Do you actually train in ingorance.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news

Self-protection involves killing people so rarely in a statistical sense
that
it is meaningless as a justification for handguns. Even self-protection
is
rarely required in civilized societies. And handguns are poor weapons for
hunting.


Only takes once.


In areas without guns, most criminals are unarmed.

Baseless nonsense.

In fact, this is true even
in areas with guns, since the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime
can
be very severe, and since guns are expensive.

Makes no difference to a criminal.


How many times have you had to kill someone during those 30 years?

Many overwhelming stories of people who have saved their lives, and the
lives of others by being legally armed.

"chris" wrote in message
...


Oh my God! Please tell me you don't actually believe that??

I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??

AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty - we
sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!

I keep three loaded guns in my home, unloaded gun are about as useful as a
small hammer.

I carry one most everywhere I go, kind of like a spare tire in the car. I
haven't used either in more than 30 years. But if I ever need either, I bet
I will be glad I have them.

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

You freakin' whimp.

This is not a good attitude for someone who owns a gun.

You YOU'RE qualified to judge anyones attitude.,

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting writes:

Fortunately, I live in a rural
area where this isn't likely to happen, but if a band of terrorists came
through here, I wouldn't need to call the police and wait. I'd just
call a few neighbors and load my weapons.

What you are overlooking is the fact that a band of terrorists will
_never_
come through your neighborhood. They are about as likely as a meteor
strike.
What precautions have you taken against meteors?

There are countless stories of people victimized in there homes without
warning, and it happens in every country. You don't need foreign terrorist
to be victimized.

On the flip side, there are millions of legal firearms, owned and carried by
responsible citizens, that never harm as much as a rabbit.

Allowing responsible citizens to own and carry firearms, has nothing to do
with the crime rate.

You're a moron.

"chris" wrote in message
...


Those arguments are usually the ones I hear levelled against advocates of
gun control. Think about this though - IMHO it is the sheer fact that
guns are such a part of the society that they are present to be used by
criminals. If guns were controlled then there would be far fewer for the
crims to lay their hands on.

That really has little to do with reality. If criminals can import herion
and cocane, what do you think would stop them from importing firearms?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to obtain a pilot's license in
the
U.S. than it is to obtain a gun. In fact, you can arm yourself with
automatic
weapons and cannons more easily than you can obtain a pilot's license.

That's because we are scared ****less, that some moron like you will try to
fly a plane.

We can just simply shoot you, but a plane would be harder to stop.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:58:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
Iraq are able to resist occupation.

why do you call them insurgents? If this - theoretically - happens in the
US and the people in the US wearing weapons to defend them against a
conquerer (as you stated above), do you then call them also insurgents?

If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming into
Iraq to fight.

Matt

No really they wouldn't be.

in·sur·gent (Ä*n-sûr'jÉ™nt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

chris wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Chris wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message
...
chris wrote:

Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!

That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
a club or a bomb or even bare hands.

As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
people to be ready to protect themselves and others.

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!

Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.

Hey, that wasn't me - I think whoever it was thought it would be fun to
impersonate me :-)

Anyhow, i don't see the point of handguns. Neither do the police in
this country. Why? At least with a rifle you can go hunting, but all
handgun, or anything automatic, is good for is killing people. Why the
hell would anyone be comfortable with the general population running
around with weapons like that?


All this talk of protecting yourself smells like bull**** to me - I
can't see any time when it is acceptable for a person to take anothers'
life... And when I hear that you can get a permit to carry a concealed
handgun - please tell me that's not true???

It's not only true but I have such a permit in my pocket as I type this.

As far as not ever seeing a time when taking a life is acceptable. I
have to ask would you not do so to protect your family? If not that is
just sad.

Maxwell writes:

ammonium nitrate, dip****.

Ammonium nitrate won't do it. I asked about something readily accessible.
Something convenient and easy to use, in other words. Something that kills at
a distance without endangering the killer. Something that can be used on the
spur of the moment.

Ammonium nitrate, even when used as a bomb ingredient, does not meet these
criteria. There have been very few mass murders carried out by individuals
with ammonium nitrate.