|
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 12:07:51 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 10:27:26 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 3:43:40 PM UTC-5, Boating All Out wrote: The pot smokers are all wired to vote. No, they are "wired" to eat cheetos and watch cartoons. They'd forget to vote. Proof your ramblings are those of an idiot. Proof that you are narrow minded. Have some personal experience with that, eh? I sure do, So you're a pot-head? Figures. You stupid fool!!!! Can you not comprehend and follow a thread??? I said, "Proof that you are narrow minded". To which you asked "Have some personal experience with that, eh?"....... And I said "sure do........" and of course to try to make your stupid point, you failed to post the rest of my answer. How Harryesque of you. |
What the 'ell??
|
What the 'ell??
In article , says...
On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Bull****. Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... "it happened".... Will you say the same thing when I bunch of elementary school kids are caught in the crossfire because some NRA zealot goes nuts when someone brings a squirt gun to school? Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? No, and I don't think our grade schools are the place for guns. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs. Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid.... Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved, is always identified. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... In article , says... On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Why does Harry Reid carry a concealed handgun? Cite? Same as Feinstien's bodyguard carrying a submachine gun. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1268645888378694356.654977bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan. Sirhan had the ability to read and act into the future, altering what happens? How? You have no analytic ability. Bobbie Kennedy would have been President, and that would have changed the following Presidents, and those three made some of the biggest changes in the country. Not all for the good. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings, and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate, and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency. |
What the 'ell??
ESAD wrote:
On 12/31/12 7:56 PM, Califbill wrote: ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan. Your boy Crazy Zell is past his prime. Another stupid, nothing post from you. |
What the 'ell??
In article 707354998378760787.458258bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs. Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid.... Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved, is always identified. Okay, let me try to put in so that even you can understand it. What is the purpose and intent in owning an SUV? Is it to kill something or someone? Now ask the same question about someone owning a gun. Do people own guns to get from point A to point B? Do people own assault weapons to carry groceries or take the kids to baseball practice? Now doesn't that above bull**** sound silly? |
What the 'ell??
In article 1167605627378760474.634463bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1268645888378694356.654977bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan. Sirhan had the ability to read and act into the future, altering what happens? How? You have no analytic ability. Bobbie Kennedy would have been President, and that would have changed the following Presidents, and those three made some of the biggest changes in the country. Not all for the good. Oh, so YOU can predict what has never happened. You know for a fact that Bobby would have been president HOW? Do you realize that, just like Sirhan, that could have been stymied in any manner of ways? Heart attack? Decision to not run? |
What the 'ell??
In article 756875686378760670.676437bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Why does Harry Reid carry a concealed handgun? Cite? Same as Feinstien's bodyguard carrying a submachine gun. I didn't ask for cite for Feinstien's bodyguard. I asked for a cite for the allegation that Harry Reid carries a concealed handgun. |
What the 'ell??
In article 975696028378760049.779817bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings, and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate, and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency. One third??? Can you do any math?? Okay, population wise, England and Wales, is ONE SIXTH of the U.S. In TWO years in the U.K. there were 39 deaths. In the U.S. there were 12,000 in ONE year. Now do tell how that math ratio comes out to 1/3....... |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 975696028378760049.779817bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings, and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate, and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency. One third??? Can you do any math?? Okay, population wise, England and Wales, is ONE SIXTH of the U.S. In TWO years in the U.K. there were 39 deaths. In the U.S. there were 12,000 in ONE year. Now do tell how that math ratio comes out to 1/3....... How many murders in England? Not just firearms. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1167605627378760474.634463bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1268645888378694356.654977bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan. Sirhan had the ability to read and act into the future, altering what happens? How? You have no analytic ability. Bobbie Kennedy would have been President, and that would have changed the following Presidents, and those three made some of the biggest changes in the country. Not all for the good. Oh, so YOU can predict what has never happened. You know for a fact that Bobby would have been president HOW? Do you realize that, just like Sirhan, that could have been stymied in any manner of ways? Heart attack? Decision to not run? Idiot! |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 707354998378760787.458258bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs. Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid.... Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved, is always identified. Okay, let me try to put in so that even you can understand it. What is the purpose and intent in owning an SUV? Is it to kill something or someone? Now ask the same question about someone owning a gun. Do people own guns to get from point A to point B? Do people own assault weapons to carry groceries or take the kids to baseball practice? Now doesn't that above bull**** sound silly? Apples and oranges. |
What the 'ell??
In article 766682593378769453.001525bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 975696028378760049.779817bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings, and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate, and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency. One third??? Can you do any math?? Okay, population wise, England and Wales, is ONE SIXTH of the U.S. In TWO years in the U.K. there were 39 deaths. In the U.S. there were 12,000 in ONE year. Now do tell how that math ratio comes out to 1/3....... How many murders in England? Not just firearms. Psssst, we are talking about firearms and the availability of such..... sheesh. |
What the 'ell??
In article 1149199699378769382.852405bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 707354998378760787.458258bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs. Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid.... Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved, is always identified. Okay, let me try to put in so that even you can understand it. What is the purpose and intent in owning an SUV? Is it to kill something or someone? Now ask the same question about someone owning a gun. Do people own guns to get from point A to point B? Do people own assault weapons to carry groceries or take the kids to baseball practice? Now doesn't that above bull**** sound silly? Apples and oranges. EXACTLY!!! Now you are getting why it is such a stupid argument. |
What the 'ell??
In article 201055824378769422.069152bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1167605627378760474.634463bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1268645888378694356.654977bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Actually only takes one shooter to really change history. WW1 started with one shooter. Biggest change in US history was probably Sirhan Sirhan. He gave us Nixon, Carter, Reagan. Sirhan had the ability to read and act into the future, altering what happens? How? You have no analytic ability. Bobbie Kennedy would have been President, and that would have changed the following Presidents, and those three made some of the biggest changes in the country. Not all for the good. Oh, so YOU can predict what has never happened. You know for a fact that Bobby would have been president HOW? Do you realize that, just like Sirhan, that could have been stymied in any manner of ways? Heart attack? Decision to not run? Idiot! Well, do tell then, how are you certain without a doubt that if not for Sirhan that Bobby would have been president......... |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1149199699378769382.852405bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 707354998378760787.458258bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. Cars kill people, we need to limit cars, especially those evil SUVs. Do you really, I mean really fall for that ignorant rhetoric?? Every time I hear a far right wing NRA whack job spew that **** I always think, I wonder if that individual is really that stupid.... Read the paper or listen to the reporters. Is always an SUV killing or causing the accident. Not the fact the driver was an idiot, or drunk, or even the fact the other car caused the accident. If an SUV was involved, is always identified. Okay, let me try to put in so that even you can understand it. What is the purpose and intent in owning an SUV? Is it to kill something or someone? Now ask the same question about someone owning a gun. Do people own guns to get from point A to point B? Do people own assault weapons to carry groceries or take the kids to baseball practice? Now doesn't that above bull**** sound silly? Apples and oranges. EXACTLY!!! Now you are getting why it is such a stupid argument. No, I see why it is stupid to argue with an idiot like you. |
What the 'ell??
iBoaterer wrote:
In article 766682593378769453.001525bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 975696028378760049.779817bmckeenospam- , says... iBoaterer wrote: In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings, and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate, and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency. One third??? Can you do any math?? Okay, population wise, England and Wales, is ONE SIXTH of the U.S. In TWO years in the U.K. there were 39 deaths. In the U.S. there were 12,000 in ONE year. Now do tell how that math ratio comes out to 1/3....... How many murders in England? Not just firearms. Psssst, we are talking about firearms and the availability of such..... sheesh. We are also talking murder. |
What the 'ell??
In article , says...
On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... He flat out ignored all you said about human interaction. To a gun nut it's all about guns. The typical gun nut owns many more guns than a cop, and unlike a cop, sees pulling a gun as first option. Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... The cops didn't take "down one suspect." They killed a murdering gun nut pointing a .45 at them. "Detectives searching Johnson's apartment found books on training and fighting skills such as "Techniques and Equipment of the Deadly Marksmen Snipers" and "Attack Proof - the Ultimate Guide to Personal Protection," the source said." Besides that, he legally purchased the gun - wait for it - in Florida. Nine civilians were injured, not eleven. All but 3 grazed by bullet or concrete pottery fragments. Patched and released. The other 3 were hospitalized with injuries said to be "not serious." "They weren't even rookies." No, they were 15 year veterans. And had never fired a shot in the line of duty. A gun nut probably thinks cops should "go looking" for REAL combat situations. You know - practice. Fired 16 rounds - NYPD uses hollow points - and hit with 10. Not good enough for the gun nut though. A gun nut would know how to handle another gun nut better. Riiiiight. Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? Pretty sure gfretwell would say AGNA - American Gun Nut Association. That's their answer to gun violence - more guns. Kudos to you Scotty, for injecting some sense into this conversation. I don't usually think about the gun nut element of people. Don't run in that crowd. Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. |
What the 'ell??
On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. |
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away from our public schools. I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on: 1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range. 2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail. 3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening and services. 4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing firearms. 5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to resolve conflict without "going Scotty." Is that why you live so far away from a school? |
What the 'ell??
|
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/1/13 12:37 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:45 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:02:40 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/31/12 8:32 AM, wrote: Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. Too rational for the lunatics in this country. How would you 'disarm the population' in DC and Anacostia, ESAD? They must have already been disarmed. Owning a handgun has been illegal in DC since 1968 (unless it was registered at that time) and long guns are heavily regulated. This should be the safest city in the country. I proposed a plan. The plan was to round up all the useless old racist right-wing farts like Herring and send them into the tough neighborhoods in DC to knock on doors and insist on having the occupants turn over their firearms. My plan: 1. Provides honest work for the old-fart right wingers. 2. Might result in some of the old farts being terminated, an event that would cut down on the number of racists *and* the CO2 they emit. 3. Might get some firearms out of the hands of those who might not be legally entitled to have them. Such duties might help people like Herring atone for the horrors they visited upon SE Asia. There are no unregistered "guns" in DC. If they are then they are illegal. |
What the 'ell??
In article 756875686378760670.676437bmckeenospam-
, says... iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On 12/31/12 5:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/31/2012 1:23 PM, Califbill wrote: See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. If they tried that here you'd shoot him? Bilious Bill thinks the army of NRA members, once it emerges from its beer-induced stupor in the woods deer hunting expedition, will be able to stage a successful insurrection against the forces of the United States. More likely, they'll shoot each other. Why does Harry Reid carry a concealed handgun? Cite? Same as Feinstien's bodyguard carrying a submachine gun. http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/1...nate-majority- leader-harry-reid-in-2010-extolled-the-virtues-of-guns-i-carried-a-gun- every-place-i-went-but-for-me-guns-are-more-than-that-about-self- defense-video-2010/ http://www.therightscoop.com/turns-o...eid-and-diane- feinstein-have-carried-guns-for-their-protection/ |
What the 'ell??
On 1/1/2013 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? Pretty sure gfretwell would say AGNA - American Gun Nut Association. So, in other words, you do not have a rational response so you will go with the middle school drama again.. Please, leave the conversation to folks who shave... |
What the 'ell??
On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away from our public schools. I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on: 1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range. 2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail. 3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening and services. 4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing firearms. 5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to resolve conflict without "going Scotty." Is that why you live so far away from a school? He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual predator... back in Florida where he used to live... |
What the 'ell??
On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. |
What the 'ell??
On 1/1/13 7:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away from our public schools. I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on: 1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range. 2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail. 3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening and services. 4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing firearms. 5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to resolve conflict without "going Scotty." Is that why you live so far away from a school? He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual predator... back in Florida where he used to live... Still projecting, hey, little boy-man? Oh, there are two public schools and one church school in our immediate area, within walking distance if there were sidewalks. |
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. You do read all of my posts! I am touched and appreciative. We are not the ones who have a loaded shotgun sitting in the umbrella stand next to the front door. We are not the ones who "concealed carry" while walking around our houses? We are not the ones hoping and praying for some innocent rube to walk up, knock on our front door and give us the opportunity to threaten someone with a gun with the wanted result of actually shooting that person. You really do need to watch what you say in this forum. Having your posts not archived doesn't mean that they do not exist and that they will not be available for the police and prosecutor to use against you in a court of law. How many times have you been turned down for a CCP in Maryland? Have they told you to stop sending them applications just to get the summarily rejected? |
What the 'ell??
On 1/2/13 7:41 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. You do read all of my posts! I am touched and appreciative. Actually, I don't. The above post was the first of yours I've read "directly" in a long, long time. These days, I tend to read only some of the posts of just a few of the bat**** crazy righties who frequent this joint. You, Meyer, Earl, and a couple of others are on the DNR list. For some reason, I read the referenced post and I am reading this follow-up. Then you will be back on the DNR list. Little Snotty, Bilious Bill, Crazy Canuck...they are entertainly nutso righties. I watch Little Snotty because I think one day he's going to shoot up a school or drive into a crowd of pedestrians, and I want to be able to say, "Hey, it was predictable." You are just repetitive and boring. Bye-bye. |
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 11:19:05 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam- , says... wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there... http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html What is YOUR solution? Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles. The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law. All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms. See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants. Here's how you do it: http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008. Here's how who does it? You do know that Canada makes it's own laws, eh? That lady is talking about Britain. Being next door to y'all makes it much harder to control hand guns and ammunition. Why is the Queen your head of state? |
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/2/13 7:41 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. You do read all of my posts! I am touched and appreciative. Actually, I don't. The above post was the first of yours I've read "directly" in a long, long time. These days, I tend to read only some of the posts of just a few of the bat**** crazy righties who frequent this joint. You, Meyer, Earl, and a couple of others are on the DNR list. For some reason, I read the referenced post and I am reading this follow-up. Then you will be back on the DNR list. Little Snotty, Bilious Bill, Crazy Canuck...they are entertainly nutso righties. I watch Little Snotty because I think one day he's going to shoot up a school or drive into a crowd of pedestrians, and I want to be able to say, "Hey, it was predictable." You are just repetitive and boring. Bye-bye. Have you paid your taxes and debts? Did you make a resolution for 2013 to make your creditors whole? |
What the 'ell??
On 1/2/2013 7:51 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/2/13 7:41 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. You do read all of my posts! I am touched and appreciative. Actually, I don't. The above post was the first of yours I've read "directly" in a long, long time. These days, I tend to read only some of the posts of just a few of the bat**** crazy righties who frequent this joint. You, Meyer, Earl, and a couple of others are on the DNR list. For some reason, I read the referenced post and I am reading this follow-up. Then you will be back on the DNR list. Little Snotty, Bilious Bill, Crazy Canuck...they are entertainly nutso righties. I watch Little Snotty because I think one day he's going to shoot up a school or drive into a crowd of pedestrians, and I want to be able to say, "Hey, it was predictable." You are just repetitive and boring. Bye-bye. Do you keep your shotgun in the umbrella stand, barrel up, or stock up? |
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/1/13 7:20 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 5:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote: Now it's more clear why you are disgusted by krause, another gun nut. Always talking about he would "defend himself" with his guns. As crazy as you are, you're a a couple notches saner than a gun nut. Yeah, I know, faint praise. All I got. You seem unable to understand what you read. I certainly will defend with a firearm from a home invader. That's about it. That doesn't make me a gun nut. Yes, you are a gun nut. You are the one who regal us with your stories of killing stumpy and what you would do if the wrong person knocked on your door. Remember to make sure you actually kill the person and not just maime them. It would suck for the police to find out that you opened your door and then pulled the trigger. Oh, make sure that you have your throw away gun to plant on the "intruder" you just killed. You need to meeet force with force. They would want to know why you opened the door, killed someone, planted a gun on them rather than calling 911. D'uh. "Stumpy" was an old tree stump which was going to be removed one way or another because it sat in the middle of a future septic system drain field. You morons seem to confuse knocking on a door with home invasion. YOU told Scotty that if he showed up on your property that he would leave in an ambulence or worse. |
What the 'ell??
|
What the 'ell??
In article ,
says... On 1/1/13 7:49 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away from our public schools. I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on: 1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range. 2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail. 3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening and services. 4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing firearms. 5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to resolve conflict without "going Scotty." Is that why you live so far away from a school? He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual predator... back in Florida where he used to live... Still projecting, hey, little boy-man? Oh, there are two public schools and one church school in our immediate area, within walking distance if there were sidewalks. You can't walk anywhere unless there is sidewalks? Figures. |
What the 'ell??
On 1/2/13 8:54 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 1/1/13 7:49 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 7:15 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 1/1/13 12:59 PM, JustWait wrote: On 1/1/2013 12:32 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:37:17 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 12/31/2012 11:12 AM, JustWait wrote: Quite frankly I think the training should be based on the training a rookie Police Officer comes in with... This might mean a couple years of night school, but if you are going to have armed anybody in the schools I think they need all the tools of conflict resolution, physical ability, tactical awareness, etc that a fully trained Police Officer has. Why do we think there is something wonderful about the training cops have? Because a lot of their training is directed at exactly the type of incursion we are talking about here... Remember last summer the cops in New York shot 11 innocent bystanders, taking down one suspect. They weren't even rookies. It called "the fog of war"... it was terrible, but it happened. Hey, I hear a plane crashed once, maybe we just shouldn't fly either... Do you think a bunch of untrained civilians would do any better? In fact, can you give me one identifiable group that you think would be better suited for such duty? I think it would be better if we kept armed people of every kind away from our public schools. I'd rather we spend that sort of money, or a good portion of it on: 1. Licensing gun owners and guns, and that includes all current gun owners and their firearms. Licensing to include a mandatory safety course and demonstration of knowledge at a licensed firing range. 2. No private sales of firearms without a legal paper trail. 3. Drastically increased funding for community mental health screening and services. 4. Outlawing of firearms that can accommodate more than 10 rounds in a magazine, and required turning in or permanent modification of existing firearms. 5. Educational programs in the public schools that teach children how to resolve conflict without "going Scotty." Is that why you live so far away from a school? He lives that far because Harry Krause is a convicted sexual predator... back in Florida where he used to live... Still projecting, hey, little boy-man? Oh, there are two public schools and one church school in our immediate area, within walking distance if there were sidewalks. You can't walk anywhere unless there is sidewalks? Figures. Do you have to work extra hard at being stupid or does it come naturally? To walk to the three schools in our immediate area, you'd have to walk on the side of several state roads, one of which is a very narrow two-laner with lots of blind spots and the other with heavy traffic during rush hour. For different reasons, both roads are dangerous for pedestrians. That's why the county runs school buses to pick up the kids, even though their schools are within easy walking distance. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com