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

formatting link
> We definitely need more guns. Worked real good for Beirut, eh?

What, military occupation and the declaration of martial law?

Reply to
J. Clarke
Loading thread data ...

I sometimes wonder when I see the likes of our Congress.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I guess you assume they will never be shot.

As far as benefits are concerned, guess it depends on your definition of "benefits".

A few less innocent people being shot might be a start.

I really don't care, anything would be more than exists now.

Hazmat regulations have made the casual acquisition of lead all but impossible.

The last 20,000 lbs of shooting range lead I recovered for a boat ballast was a total PITA.

Much more difficult than 10 years earlier.

Would not have been possible without my industrial contacts.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:I0iYk.7171$as4.4091 @nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:

Agreed.

Reply to
Han

formatting link
Good heavens! Could a newspaper story be any more sensationalized? Whatever happened to just reporting the facts? Whoever wrote this intended to make it sound like a movie scene.

No wonder the dead tree media is on its way downhill.

Several clues as to what transpired, who was involved, and the fact that more gun laws probably wouldn't have had any sort of impact:

"... a dispute between two couples who had 'previous hostility.'"

"... pulling the grip from his baggy pants pocket."

" ... Even after the shooting, one woman was still screaming angrily. ... "I'm going to . . . kill you right now!" she shouted, slamming her fists on the car. "I'm going to kill you! Yeah, you!" "

Not a lot to go on, but one can make some inferences. Of course the reporters don't provide any additional context, they were too busy writing their Hollywood script.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

formatting link

and what part of "It's a miracle that these were the only two people killed, given it was a crowded toy store." is so difficult for you to understand. Two knuckleheads with guns shooting in a crowded store and you are whining about the "sensationalized" writeup. You have truly lost your soul somewhere. j4

Reply to
jo4hn

I don't see any miracle. I see that two guys took a shot at each other and hit the target they aimed at. I don't condone what they did, but they did not shoot at innocent people, nor did they hit any. Perhaps they spent hours at a shooting range and learned how to aim. Maybe they should get the Darwin Sharpshooters Award.

Perhaps one of the two should be a hero for taking the other one out. Let's get the rest of the story and base a decision on facts.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

So how many people do you think are going to practice regularly at 10 bucks a shot?

Uh, why will a 10 buck a shot tax on ammunition result in "a few less innocent people being shot"?

So you believe that police work for free? Or is it that you believe that they have no budget for prosecuting persons who shoot others?

Oh? So what does happen to discarded wheel weights?

Digging up a range is a bit different from emptying the barrel behind the tire store.

Uh huh.

Reply to
J. Clarke

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the US ones?

Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of crimes done by the press.

Reply to
Upscale

It might make a decent human interest story to find out in a year or so what has happened to Joe and see how it correlates to his situation during the election.

Reply to
Upscale

Now, *that one* made me laugh. Here it is almost 3:30 am and the neighbours must be wondering what all the laughing was about. :)

Reply to
Upscale

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:_TnYk.9925$ snipped-for-privacy@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com:

Well, next time there is going to be a shooting like that, I'd want to know who is going to volunteer to stand directly behind one of the shooters.

Reply to
Han

If they're using typical handguns it's a pretty safe place to stand--duck down behind the guy and he makes a good shield.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Did you notice the sentence about getting the facts? Was anyone standing behind the shooters? There are many possible scenarios so I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:hYxYk.1267$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:

I'm just trying to emphasize that it was pure luck that no one else was hurt by flying bullets.

Reply to
Han

That is exactly what I meant by waiting for facts. How do you know it was pure luck? Is there even such a thing as luck? How do you know there was flying bullets? How many shots were fired? Could be shooter No 1 waited until there was no one else in range. We don't know that and yet you say it was pure luck. I don't believe it.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in news:SkzYk.7803$ snipped-for-privacy@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com:

There were 2 shooters who shot each other dead. That's really the only relevant facts that I know. (Yes, they were provoked by their wives, or whatever the relationships were). In such a case I think it is indeed pure luck that eithere only 2 shots were fired, or all the other shots (I don't know the number fired) went either totally in the object of each shooter or completely wide of anyone.

Reply to
Han

Not relevant.

It might.

Read and try to understand what was written.

They get processed by authorized hazmat organizations.

These days it is a hazmat operation.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

If there's "pure luck" it might be that the luck was that both shooters had been practicing regularly so that they hit what they were aiming at.

Reply to
J. Clarke

It is to the question of whether they have shot the gun they are carrying. You asked me why they would not have shot it and I gave a reason.

By what mechanism? "It might" is not or should not be sufficient justification for legislation.

You're the one who said that it was better than the _nothing_ that we have now.

Fine, since you seem to think that one cannot obtain used wheelweights, would you impose restrictions on the possession of brand new wheel weights?

In that case, I suggest that you go have the cops bust every tire store in the US.

Reply to
J. Clarke

HomeOwnersHub website 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.