Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Page 1 of 13  
"Upscale" wrote:

As in soccer (their football) fans across the pond, especially in the UK.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote

The "aberrant behavior" is just normal holiday shopping madness. And this sort of thing has happened at walmart before. Which is why I will not go near any of those mob type of sales. Women, in particular, become a frenzied mob when their are limited bargains available. I wonder what the evolutionary biologists would say about this.
There was a case locally, a few years ago, in a parking structure at a mall. The season was Christmas and parking was scarce. A parking space opened up and a woman driving her car darted into the spot. There was another woman, carrying packages, walking by. She got run over. The individual who ran her over ran into the mall to go shopping, leaving her victim laying on the cement with packages scattered.
Witnesses ran to her aid and called the police and the medics. Sho was transported to a hospital and the police waited for the hit and run driver. She came out of the mall and became very indignant when placed under arrest. Her explanation, "Parking was hard to find and she got in my way."
These kinds of holiday madness events occur every year. Sad to say, but that is the way it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have entered a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east of downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.
Too early for casualty reports.
The mess in India continues.
What the hell is this world coming to?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should have to pass examinations in firearm safety, mental stability, and have never been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones, including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s). Anyone who fails any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.
The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not qualifying.
Hey, my opinions are mine!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent, been convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to unauthorized persons) to possess a firearm.

Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding restraining orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for domestic violence, and several others are encountered, the sale is refused.

Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in which the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know who might be armed and put a stop to their mayhem?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, ability to use the instrument desired in a manner that is safe to the user and others. I have no objection to people having guns if they are used and stored in a safe manner. Well, I still think it would be a little too easy for an "accident", but US law says apparently that you are allowed a firearm.

Yes, I have heard of the NIBC. Also, that it is easily circumvented in some states/cases. That's why I think a license is a good thing.

No, I don't think we should have multiple participants in a shootout. This case is a good example. Do you really want 10 other people to pull out handguns and start shooting at each other in a crowded department store?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

You've missed the point. If one has to pass examinations then the examinations can be used in a discriminatory or unreasonably restrictive manner--in parts of the US they were used to prevent minorities from voting--the tests were designed in such a manner that the scoring was a judgment call, and in the judgment of the scorers no black person was literate no matter what answere he gave while any white person was literate even if he couldn't read. In parts of the US there have been requirements for such examinations to be taken in order to be allowed to own a firearm. The tests were given very rarely in unexpected places with no prior announcement and the number of applicants allowed at any given session was very small--in effect the only people who were allowed to own firearms were those who had enough political influence to be informed by word of mouth.

Accidental shootings in the US are quite rare. More people die in bicycle accidents than in firearms accidents, but we place no restriction on the ownership of bicycles (and we should--an amazing number of bicyclists don't seem to be aware that they are expected to obey traffic laws).

Oh, how is it "easily circumvented"? The only manners I am aware of by which it has been "circumvented" are straw man sales, which are felonious crimes, and private party transactions which are not regulated mainly because Congress knows damn well that trying to regulate them has about as much likelihood of success as an attempt to herd cats.
A requirement for a license would not prevent either class of sale.
Further, according to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court, the ownership of firearms is a right, it is not a privilege, and so is no more subject to licensing than is free speech.

Many states in the US have "must issue" carry permit laws that state that anyone who applies for a carry permit must be issued one unless he is a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm. Can you give us an example of _one_ incident in which as a result "10 other people pulled out handguns and started shooting at each other"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Happens in gang fights all the time. One person pulls out a gun and then so do all the others. But then, they're gangs and that's not what you're referring to.
However, if you and a dozen friends were all armed and your best friend pulled out a gun to defend himself, there's a excellent chance you would too. If you were just walking along and you heard some bullets zip by, wouldn't your first impulse be to pull out your gun too? If your first inclination would be to run and hide, then why would you be carrying a gun in the first place? Face it, if someone is carrying a gun, they they're prepared to pull it as necessary. When you don't carry a gun, then you're prepared to take different steps.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think there needs to be far more vigilante justice doled out.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jay Pique wrote:

Not a good idea. That's how the Klan got started.
Armed self defense is not vigilante justice.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, sure...run to the worst-case scenario. I'm thinking about more of a Charles Bronson sort of vigilante. ;-)
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Like you said...not exactly the topic at hand.

As my father says, "and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle". You can make all of the "if" statements you want, but the fact is that it just doesn't happen.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Not if you wish to survive the situation.

Deeply flawed premise... Pulling out one's weapon is the second thing to do. Ducking behind cover is first. If possible, running a VERY short distance to cover is a good way to get to that cover. Running far is a good way to get shot in the back by a bad guy or a cop.

Poppycock. Prepared or not, if you are not armed, your choices are more limited. Duck, hide, evade, and sneak are the ONLY options left. For people who are not young, agile, or otherwise similar to soldier material, running to evade is not a viable option. Whether armed or not, the first defense is to avoid places where psychos and junkies frequently go hunting victims. When that does not work, the armed individual (defender) must use guile, skill, calm judgment, and great care to survive. The initial aggressor (bad guy) has most of the advantages.
A situation of that kind went the right way one night in Alabama a few years ago. An armed older ("senior") fellow and his family were at a restaurant eating. Bad guys entered and held the patrons at gunpoint to rob them. Hoping to not increase the danger to his family, the armed older fellow was going to go peacefully along with being robbed. Then the bad guys began herding people into the freezer room of the restaurant. Knowing that other recent robberies had occurred where the victims were murdered in the freezer rooms in restaurants, the armed older ("senior") fellow drew his weapon and shot the robbers, killing 2 of them. A couple of "good guy" people were wounded (bullets can pass completely through bad guys and hit other people), but no "good guys" died. The dead and wounded bad guys were later identified as the murderers in the previous restaurant robbery/killings. A horible nightmare was minimized by a peace loving, armed man. It happens all the time in situations where no shots have to be fired, but those seldom get reported.
Bless that armed older fellow who had his gun on him and used it. Desperation, guts, a gun, and no place to "run and hide"... in Life and Death situations, the real world is infinitely variable, but seldom like abstract mental constructs (dreams based on limited or erroneous information), TV, or movies.
Axel
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, your opinions are yours *S*.
Criminals don't have sensitivity training, weapons training, scruples, morals..yadda, yadda.
Sooo.. MY idea, is that in order to be equal to the enemy, one must think and behave like one. IOW, get a gun when you can, to hell with regulations. The biggest fear I have, is a government that tries to disarm its population. What COULD they be up to?
If I am to believe that I have nothing to fear, then nobody should fear my .50 calibre. It is in good, safe, well-trained hands. I take care of my stuff, you take care of yours.
And if you know what you're doing, a .50 calibre can take out an Apache helicopter, talking to it won't work. <G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com> wrote

Also seems to me a .50 could make real believers out of most miscreants.
P D Q (G)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Under Federal law no person who has been convicted of a felony or been adjudicated criminally insane is allowed to own a firearm, so you pretty much have what you want.
It used to be that being committed would be a block, but the courts struck that down.
Passing examinations in order to exercise a right has a very bad reputation in the US, where such tests were used to bar minorities from voting.

In which case it becomes a privilege and not a right.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plenty of laws exist. The problem is that people don't always obey the law. Making more laws won't help in that situation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:59:17 +0000, Han wrote:

Good idea in principle, Han, but I doubt it'd keep any firearms out of the possession of criminals. All it would do is penalize the honest citizen. Anyone who knew they couldn't pass the exam would just get a gun on the black market.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess I am still too much of a 60's idealist ... (see X-face)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite so. The UK has really strict gun laws but it make not one iota of difference to the criminal fraternity.
--
Stuart Winsor

Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.