| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Spartacus" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2007 07:17:48 PM |
| Object: |
Fire arms: For or Against? |
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
.
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 01:17:57 PM |
|
|
In message <1181953068.968013.165100@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Spartacus <jinxfx13@hotmail.com> writes
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
The only statistic I know (since they quoted it in the paper in the last
week or two) is that, on average, nine children are killed by guns in
the USA every week. That's accidentally and deliberately. I would think
it's mostly handguns, but it didn't say.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BoredToTears" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 07:43:02 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun, 01:17, Spartacus <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter!
Oh, but it would! One knife-wielding manic, twenty students? One gun
wielding manic, twenty students? Where would you rather be? Who would
you rather face? Who would you rather your 5 year-old child face? Ever
heard of the Dunblane massacre? Google it, you'll read more than you
would ever want to.
There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with!
If people want to kill themselves, that's their choice but to equip
those who wish to kill innocents, that's entirely different.
There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
My "take" is that people should not be allowed to possess guns cos
people can't be trusted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 07:47:30 PM |
|
|
"BoredToTears" <beejayceee1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181954582.680833.286540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jun, 01:17, Spartacus <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous
and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter!
Oh, but it would! One knife-wielding manic, twenty students? One gun
wielding manic, twenty students? Where would you rather be? Who would
you rather face? Who would you rather your 5 year-old child face? Ever
heard of the Dunblane massacre? Google it, you'll read more than you
would ever want to.
There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with!
If people want to kill themselves, that's their choice but to equip
those who wish to kill innocents, that's entirely different.
There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
My "take" is that people should not be allowed to possess guns cos
people can't be trusted.
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for
.
|
|
|
| User: "BoredToTears" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 08:04:11 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun, 01:47, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181954582.680833.286540@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jun, 01:17, Spartacus <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous
and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter!
Oh, but it would! One knife-wielding manic, twenty students? One gun
wielding manic, twenty students? Where would you rather be? Who would
you rather face? Who would you rather your 5 year-old child face? Ever
heard of the Dunblane massacre? Google it, you'll read more than you
would ever want to.
There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with!
If people want to kill themselves, that's their choice but to equip
those who wish to kill innocents, that's entirely different.
There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
My "take" is that people should not be allowed to possess guns cos
people can't be trusted.
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for
Couldn't agree more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Ball" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 09:36:59 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:47:30 -0700, "%" <persent@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayceee1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
My "take" is that people should not be allowed to possess guns cos
people can't be trusted.
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for
I agree that people can't be trusted; and that is why qualified people
should have guns--and go armed. My renewed permit should be here any day
now!
Many people have vast gun collections, but never shoot anything. They
simply appreciate the engineering and so forth. It's not a difficult
concept.
________________________
Whatever it takes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 10:21:13 AM |
|
|
In article <kss7731j5o4d3028an7jbpdnjgu9sv36g2@4ax.com>,
Michael A. Ball <Guardian@wireco.net> wrote:
Many people have vast gun collections, but never shoot anything. They
simply appreciate the engineering and so forth. It's not a difficult
concept.
I actually find that a very difficult concept, unless you're talking
about antiques or something. Collecting deadly weapons just for fun
seems a little odd on the face of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jane" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 10:29:25 AM |
|
|
"RGB" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:JdTci.272637$3h2.82569@fe08.news.easynews.com...
In article <kss7731j5o4d3028an7jbpdnjgu9sv36g2@4ax.com>,
Michael A. Ball <Guardian@wireco.net> wrote:
Many people have vast gun collections, but never shoot anything. They
simply appreciate the engineering and so forth. It's not a difficult
concept.
I actually find that a very difficult concept, unless you're talking
about antiques or something. Collecting deadly weapons just for fun
seems a little odd on the face of it.
I don't drink anymore (1 year sobriety) but probably have close to 50 shot
glasses in my collection. LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 03:05:53 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
RGB wrote:
In article <kss7731j5o4d3028an7jbpdnjgu9sv36g2@4ax.com>,
Michael A. Ball <Guardian@wireco.net> wrote:
Many people have vast gun collections, but never shoot anything. They
simply appreciate the engineering and so forth. It's not a difficult
concept.
I actually find that a very difficult concept, unless you're talking
about antiques or something. Collecting deadly weapons just for fun
seems a little odd on the face of it.
My dream is an M1 Garand.
http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/flagm1nobayonetwallpapermemorableplacesdotcom.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Ball" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
17 Jun 2007 09:44:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:05:53 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
...
My dream is an M1 Garand.
http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/flagm1nobayonetwallpapermemorableplacesdotcom.jpg
That's not my favorite gun, but it is a classic--and a very classy--gun.
It's truly well respected. Maybe you have one some day! I hope so.
________________________
A day without recoil is like a day without sunshine!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 08:32:21 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:47 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Food... Unless you out run gazzels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 08:38:57 PM |
|
|
"Spartacus" <jinxfx13@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181957541.444381.29410@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 8:47 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Food... Unless you out run gazzels.
well you don't do that with a hand gun ,
you do it in season and ,
you do it with a registered weapon and an FAC license ,
and a license to hunt whatever you can't out run
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 09:03:30 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 9:38 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spartacus" <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181957541.444381.29410@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 15, 8:47 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Food... Unless you out run gazzels.
well you don't do that with a hand gun ,
you do it in season and ,
you do it with a registered weapon and an FAC license ,
and a license to hunt whatever you can't out run
You mean you do the responsible thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 09:08:25 PM |
|
|
"Spartacus" <jinxfx13@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181959410.441832.301420@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 15, 9:38 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spartacus" <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181957541.444381.29410@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> On Jun
15, 8:47 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BoredToTears" <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
that's sort of how i see it too ,
if you aren't going to shoot something ,
what do you need a gun for- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Food... Unless you out run gazzels.
well you don't do that with a hand gun ,
you do it in season and ,
you do it with a registered weapon and an FAC license ,
and a license to hunt whatever you can't out run
You mean you do the responsible thing?
no the responsible thing would be ,
leave the freakin animals alone
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 08:31:00 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:43 pm, BoredToTears <beejayce...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 16 Jun, 01:17, Spartacus <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
And how many seconds grace would you get with a small nuke?
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter!
Oh, but it would! One knife-wielding manic, twenty students? One gun
wielding manic, twenty students? Where would you rather be? Who would
you rather face? Who would you rather your 5 year-old child face? Ever
heard of the Dunblane massacre? Google it, you'll read more than you
would ever want to.
My father was from Dunblane... You're setting up your own
cercumstances and it's not just effecting schools! A 747 pilot can
just as easily make the same decision to kill you all. Yes? Not only
can weapons be used as tools, but tools can be used as weapons! Ok?
Like I said, it wouldn't matter and your tax dollars would find there
way way into Politiciaqns pockets cuz of but one more dumb law that
wouldn't work anyway! You may only go squirrly once in your life but
you'll always have a weapon on hand for when you do! What was man's
first invention? A club! And he ussed it on the wimmin! Your Canadian.
Who owns guns in Canada in such vast numbers as in The States but
those of Militery training in the responsible use of weapons. So I say
go ahead and have your toys, but train everyone in their use first so
you all stand equal ground...
There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with!
If people want to kill themselves, that's their choice but to equip
those who wish to kill innocents, that's entirely different.
I'm not suggesting extremist anything. Just common sense. This stuff
filters down to upbinging, ideals etc. Look, you may not have the same
thoughts as any Immigrant for example but the reason immigration was
aloud in the first place was to diversify and enrich your own culture.
And locking the mayhem out is contrary to your present efforts to free
up The Middle East, which ain't gonna happen and you're already out
trillions of bucks from the war effort. Now you want to invest in the
oposit reasoning that spawned trouble in The Middle East for all of
South America... The way I see this. You make your own enemies when
what you need right now "world wide" if friends. You may not see the
results of ideals in your children for 20 years, but when they immerge
on the world scene, they'll provide real solutions for many problems
you face now to take on too much at a time. Meanwhile, tax payers will
investigate every dime the Government does spend and you can take that
to the bank... It rests on teaching each other responsible behavioural
patterns rather than gorilla warfair. At present, your country insists
on the later! How do you insist on war and gun control in your wildest
dreams?
There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
My "take" is that people should not be allowed to possess guns cos
people can't be trusted.
Arming everybody then would provide the best defence; a good offence!
Physicians police yourselves. You don't see karate experts worring
about wackos in great numbers do you? What's the sense in inventing
responsible protection and then taking it away? I have a sneaking
suspician you're multicultural already but are in serious risk of
becoming subject to a military state. Hence your statidgy should be
counter what Tv says they should be. Why are your TVs asking for gun
control now of all times? Ever ask yourself that question?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "slunky" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 07:50:39 PM |
|
|
_/ BoredToTears wrote \_
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
I think you mean semi-automatic handguns. Fully-automatic handguns
wouldn't be accurate at all. You wouldn't be able to aim with all that
recoil and just your wrists to aim.
--
-slunky
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 07:53:05 PM |
|
|
"slunky" <slunky@globalzero.org> wrote in message
news:slrnf76cul.12h.slunky@evo.zero...
_/ BoredToTears wrote \_
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere
involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer
to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump
the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
I think you mean semi-automatic handguns. Fully-automatic handguns
wouldn't be accurate at all. You wouldn't be able to aim with all that
recoil and just your wrists to aim.
--
-slunky
that's the best part
.
|
|
|
| User: "slunky" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 07:58:17 PM |
|
|
_/ % wrote \_
that's the best part
I'd rig the trigger down and then throw it and watch it bounce around.
--
-slunky
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BoredToTears" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 08:01:12 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun, 01:50, slunky <slu...@globalzero.org> wrote:
_/ BoredToTears wrote \_
Being from neither the US or Canada I can see a *huge* benefit in
making, as a vital first step, automatic hand-guns illegal. The
majority of school massacres in the US, Canada and elsewhere involved
automatic pistols of some description. Revolvers take a lot longer to
reload and fire far fewer bullets in a given space of time. Perhaps
some children could have escaped or at least had a chance to jump the
gun-man if they'd had that few seconds grace?
I think you mean semi-automatic handguns. Fully-automatic handguns
wouldn't be accurate at all. You wouldn't be able to aim with all that
recoil and just your wrists to aim.
Yup, that's what I meant! Me no know guns too well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim J." |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 01:31:00 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:17:48 -0700, Spartacus <jinxfx13@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
I wish they would do away with all the "no gun" zones nonsense and
allow people who possess a Concealed Weapons Permit to carry their
weapons anywhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael A. Ball" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 09:52:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:31:00 -0400, Tim J. <tj66821@usa.not> wrote:
...I wish they would do away with all the "no gun" zones nonsense and
allow people who possess a Concealed Weapons Permit to carry their
weapons anywhere.
Ditto! I support CWP reciprocity between all states and D.C.!
________________________
Whatever it takes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_dawggie" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
18 Jun 2007 10:31:08 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 10:17 am, Spartacus <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
I don't really care about guns. I have one here with me ATM, and
access to some higher powered versions. No, I don't plan
on others getting their mits on them, or shooting myself or
really any other living things. Guns belong locked away from
kiddies and seriously disturbed individuals.
If someone is really serious about going apeshite, they will,
and there are a lot of ways they can that involve bombs, baseball
bats, iron pipes, the lot of it. Crossbows are good too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "humble life" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
15 Jun 2007 09:15:26 PM |
|
|
Spartacus wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
Robocop, that's what you want
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 11:44:47 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 10:15 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
Robocop, that's what you want- Hide quoted text -
Well, Robocopstress wouldn't be a bad idea! I somehow find mechanical
sex compelling; it's my only hope for Syncronous Newtonian Precision.
Does she have a slot for spare change? Can she cook, clean, darn
socks, go to the parking lot for a baggy? Will she safely play with
the kids while avoiding popping their eyes out? So tell me when I
ask! When she eats her Smarties, does she eat the red ones last?
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "humble life" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 12:23:24 PM |
|
|
Spartacus wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:15 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
Robocop, that's what you want- Hide quoted text -
Well, Robocopstress wouldn't be a bad idea! I somehow find mechanical
sex compelling; it's my only hope for Syncronous Newtonian Precision.
Does she have a slot for spare change? Can she cook, clean, darn
socks, go to the parking lot for a baggy? Will she safely play with
the kids while avoiding popping their eyes out? So tell me when I
ask! When she eats her Smarties, does she eat the red ones last?
- Show quoted text -
settle for wanking and porn if you want it cheaper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 12:33:24 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 1:23 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
settle for wanking and porn if you want it cheaper- Hide quoted text -
Where's your imagination? Liver's better!
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 12:35:23 PM |
|
|
"Spartacus" <jinxfx13@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182015204.961066.253770@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 1:23 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
settle for wanking and porn if you want it cheaper- Hide quoted
text -
Where's your imagination? Liver's better!
- Show quoted text -
but its not cheaper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 12:43:45 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 1:35 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spartacus" <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182015204.961066.253770@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 1:23 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
settle for wanking and porn if you want it cheaper- Hide quoted
text -
Where's your imagination? Liver's better!
- Show quoted text -
but its not cheaper- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is if you eat it after tenderizing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 12:50:57 PM |
|
|
"Spartacus" <jinxfx13@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182015825.968361.182620@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 1:35 pm, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Spartacus" <jinxf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182015204.961066.253770@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 1:23 pm, humble life <humble.l...@nospam.com> wrote:
settle for wanking and porn if you want it cheaper- Hide quoted
text -
Where's your imagination? Liver's better!
- Show quoted text -
but its not cheaper- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It is if you eat it after tenderizing.
oh i see , the pounding of it softens it
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mighty mouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 03:33:31 AM |
|
|
Spartacus wrote:
I think it's really weird as a Canuk sitting back giggling over this
debate. Yet muy American side is troubled that there's so much fuss
over that Virginia massicre thingy and I think it was just something
fuled by the war like most things now; everyone so self righteous and
all about it... But I remember as a child, out in Saskatchewan
shooting goffers with 22 longs at 25 cents a tail! And hey! It often
made the difference whether I ate that day or not!
You could take every last gun out of The U.S. and then read reports
how students are slitting each others throats next week! You see, it
just wouldn't matter! There are lots of ways to kill yourself or
others that gun control has nothing to do with! There are also 50 ways
to leave your lover! Even if you screen for wackos, an under ground
movement will just see that as an opportunity to capitalize on it...
So, in my mind, it seems a silly argument. Weapons aren't "just"
weapons. They can also be tools. I just don't think officials are4
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
I'm totally against guns. They should be used only under controlled
conditions for hunting, farming, sports shooting and law
enforcement/military uses. Anything else is completely unnecessary.
The whole US "right" to have a gun is just *****, IMHO. No-one has
the right to put their own, their families, and the whole populations
lives at risk by owning a gun if they don't need it for one of the above
mentioned purposes (I don't care if I get flamed for that!)
If guns are heavily restricted, then there's no need to carry one for
protection, because there's less to need protection from.
Yes, people will still try to hurt and kill other people with whatever
weapons are available, but surely the risk is less if the weapons they
have are less dangerous and have to be used at close range.
Australia is the site of the world's worst lone gunman shooting rampage,
where 35 people died one horrible afternoon in 1996. I never want to
see that happen again.
http://www.portarthur.org.au/pashow.php?ACTION=Public&menu_code=400.300
(BTW, if you go to that link, also check out the ghost tour photos under
visitor info / things to do. The last photo on the page was taken by
me, about 6 months before that massacre.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartacus" |
|
| Title: Re: Fire arms: For or Against? |
16 Jun 2007 11:27:21 AM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 4:33 am, mighty mouse <mousieNOSPAM9...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Spartacus wrote:
seeing the entire picture that's all... What's your take on this?
I'm totally against guns. They should be used only under controlled
conditions for hunting, farming, sports shooting and law
enforcement/military uses. Anything else is completely unnecessary.
The whole US "right" to have a gun is just *****, IMHO. No-one has
the right to put their own, their families, and the whole populations
lives at risk by owning a gun if they don't need it for one of the above
mentioned purposes (I don't care if I get flamed for that!)
Why would you be flamed? I asked for an honest opinion and you gave
it. I do appreciate you expressing what that is! I'm of the school
that people may agree to disagree, as long as it's not habit forming.
I look at it that you must know more about it than I do with first
hand experience and all! But answer me this: If these people that
can't be trusted with weapons should brake into your home and threaten
the lives of you and your family, would you be thinking the same way
as now?
If guns are heavily restricted, then there's no need to carry one for
protection, because there's less to need protection from.
How do you qualify this? People find other ways! Necessity is the
mother of invention; more-over, even illusions can look necessary:
"Oh! There's no more guns... I think I'll take to throwing people out
windows then..." I'd rather be shot thanks! Not that I'm offering an
option. I wish that people weren't generally just plain evil scum, but
they are! One man could slit a hundred thousand throats in one night
if he were quiet and fast enough. Don't give them any ideas! Sometimes
the solution can be worse than the problem...
Yes, people will still try to hurt and kill other people with whatever
weapons are available, but surely the risk is less if the weapons they
have are less dangerous and have to be used at close range.
I don't think so... People are inventive when it comes to killing one
another. There's only been world peace a total of 92 years in all of
human history! And the greedier the rich get, the more resorceful the
poor has to be! It's not that they 'want' to 'be' criminals. They're
born into the environment; a concreat jungle! There, even a piece of
glass is a weapon at close range or as a projectile.
Australia is the site of the world's worst lone gunman shooting rampage,
where 35 people died one horrible afternoon in 1996. I never want to
see that happen again.
That is sad! But then people die in car accidents every day. How many
people die from smoking in one afternoon? Much more extensive agony!
What if while you worry about gunmen, you slip on a banana peel and
break your neck? It seems to me that if you say people can't be
trusted, all the more reason we need some form of persuasive
protection... Or anybody could do just about whatever they want. I
long for the good old days when you died in bed with your boots on I
guess... Anyway, you make a strong case! I don't even like borders or
slaughtering chickens and such. I'm a decent hue bum bean! Soon, it
might not matter due to fall out...
http://www.portarthur.org.au/pashow.php?ACTION=Public&menu_code=400.300
(BTW, if you go to that link, also check out the ghost tour photos under
visitor info / things to do. The last photo on the page was taken by
me, about 6 months before that massacre.)- Hide quoted text -
Yes thank you! Is it for my boo boo? BTW, I admire indignance! I wish
it were a better world...
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
