Doug,
Harry actually posted pictures of his "expertise" with a handgun, stating he
would use the handgun on anyone who came on his property uninvited. I would
have posted the archived post, but that is why Harry does not allow his
posts to be archived.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Make him release it?

You're offering up a straw man argument.

In that case, why do you suppose air marshals and certain other types of
marksmen are trained (with great difficulty) to shoot first at the head?
To show off? Because they get more points or something?

You have said you own a handgun. Would it be correct to assume that
you've pondered the possibility that you might have to use it against an
intruder in your home? Not point it and then argue. I mean USE it. If
your answer is yes, then have you spent any time at all reading about
HOW to use it in those circumstances?


My home defense firearm is a shotgun. I've pondered whether I might have
to use it. Under the right circumstances, I would. I know how to use it.
But home defense is not the same as what we are discussing.

Now you're using NOYB's tactics: Changing the subject to avoid answering
important questions. You wondered what a head shot would do insofar as a
person's ability to use his finger. I explained that this is precisely the
shot that certain kinds of marksmen are trained to make FIRST. This is a
different approach than used in a typical defense situation. What I've
just told you are facts. Why do you think air marshals are trained to
shoot this way?

Again:

Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this way?

Tom,
I have to tell you I have never seen anyone who likes to look on the
positive side as much as you do. You must be an extremely nice person to
have as a friend or neighbor.




"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:52:56 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me
about my driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

Harry is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. He
knows the Marshal was right in what he did, but his local street cred
would suffer if he didn't take an opposing POV. :)

Tom,
Are you saying Harry just takes the opposing viewpoint to be difficult,
that
he really doesn't believe what he says? You might be right, I have seen
Harry take strong stands on issues that are 180 degrees different than the
stand he took 30 days previous. That is the reason why he doesn't allow
his
posts to be archived.

Not at all. I think that Harry knows full well the complexities of
this situation, and is very aware that the Marshal was right to do
what he did. He is just taking this stand because to do otherwise
would put him in an awkward position with respect to his normal
attitudes with things like this, thus his local street cred would be
hurt if he didn't.

Tom,
I have to tell you I have never seen anyone who likes to look on the
positive side as much as you do. You must be an extremely nice person to
have as a friend or neighbor.




"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:52:56 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me
about my driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

Harry is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. He
knows the Marshal was right in what he did, but his local street cred
would suffer if he didn't take an opposing POV. :)

Tom,
Are you saying Harry just takes the opposing viewpoint to be difficult,
that
he really doesn't believe what he says? You might be right, I have seen
Harry take strong stands on issues that are 180 degrees different than the
stand he took 30 days previous. That is the reason why he doesn't allow
his
posts to be archived.

Not at all. I think that Harry knows full well the complexities of
this situation, and is very aware that the Marshal was right to do
what he did. He is just taking this stand because to do otherwise
would put him in an awkward position with respect to his normal
attitudes with things like this, thus his local street cred would be
hurt if he didn't.

JimC,

If you noticed in this post Harry acknowledged his real objective for
starting this thread.

"But we have plenty of instances recently in which the
police were less than forthcoming, and since this is the Bush
Administration, there is almost nothing coming out of it that I believe."

Harry was hoping an inquest would provide the democrats with more ammo for
the next election.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:52:56 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me
about my driveway leading up to my manor. wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Harry is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. He
knows the Marshal was right in what he did, but his local street cred
would suffer if he didn't take an opposing POV. :)
Tom,
Are you saying Harry just takes the opposing viewpoint to be difficult,
that he really doesn't believe what he says? You might be right, I
have seen Harry take strong stands on issues that are 180 degrees
different than the stand he took 30 days previous. That is the reason
why he doesn't allow his posts to be archived.

Not at all. I think that Harry knows full well the complexities of
this situation, and is very aware that the Marshal was right to do
what he did. He is just taking this stand because to do otherwise
would put him in an awkward position with respect to his normal
attitudes with things like this, thus his local street cred would be
hurt if he didn't.


Because of the complexities of "the situation," I've suggested a coroner's
inquest would be appropriate. Most of the remainder of the noise comes
from retardos who thought I said something else.

I don't know what happened on that jetway. Neither does anyone else here.

I do tend NOT to believe "police" in these sorts of circumstances,
because, well, they tend to lie. This is not to say the skycops were right
or wrong. But we have plenty of instances recently in which the police
were less than forthcoming, and since this is the Bush Administration,
there is almost nothing coming out of it that I believe.

So I want a real inquiry.

--
No Child Left Behind: There are always jobs in the military.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I would have tasered the guy.

No you wouldn't. You really don't know what a taser might do to an
electric detonator.


And Taser
s do not always put down the target.

I do tend NOT to believe "police" in these sorts of circumstances,
because, well, they tend to lie...So I want a real inquiry.

The call for a special prosecuter...the Dems way. Why not go for and
establish a full blown Federal Bureau of Transportation Security
Administration Abuse, the FBTSAA?

--
Skipper

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:37:01 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Make him release it?

You're offering up a straw man argument.
In that case, why do you suppose air marshals and certain other types of
marksmen are trained (with great difficulty) to shoot first at the head?
To show off? Because they get more points or something?

You have said you own a handgun. Would it be correct to assume that
you've pondered the possibility that you might have to use it against an
intruder in your home? Not point it and then argue. I mean USE it. If
your answer is yes, then have you spent any time at all reading about HOW
to use it in those circumstances?

My home defense firearm is a shotgun. I've pondered whether I might have
to use it. Under the right circumstances, I would. I know how to use it.
But home defense is not the same as what we are discussing.

Now you're using NOYB's tactics: Changing the subject to avoid answering
important questions. You wondered what a head shot would do insofar as a
person's ability to use his finger. I explained that this is precisely the
shot that certain kinds of marksmen are trained to make FIRST. This is a
different approach than used in a typical defense situation. What I've just
told you are facts. Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this
way?

Again:

Why do you think air marshals are trained to shoot this way?



You asked whether I had thought about using a gun on an intruder and how
I would use it. I answered both questions.

My question about the head shot was this, in more simpler terms. If a
perp has his finger on a spring trigger that releases when he releases
his finger, and you shoot him in the head, what happens to the trigger?
It was only a rhetorical question.

If the perp had had a pressure-release device in the pack, he would not have had his arms out to
begin with.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:03:15 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:08:49 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Dec 2005 18:31:54 -0800, wrote:

You couldn't begin to compare this situation with say, Kent State, for
example.
I'm betting that by tomorrow, it will be a racial incident and that
the Reverend Jackson will be right in the middle of it.

Interesting though that it's the second Brazilian shot dead in the
past six months or so for refusing to respond to police commands.

Anyway, there were more witness reports of the guy talking about bomb
that the two who said they never heard it, so it probably was a good
shoot. Those guys have a tough job - I hope the Marshall can handle
it without falling apart.

The fellow who was shot was a US citizen, and I believe he was a native of
Costa Rica.
Apparently, he's been here since 1986. More than enough time to understand
shouted requests to show his hands, put down the bag, etc.
Sure, unless you suffer from a serious mental illness.

As I stated, hopefully there will be a coroner's inquest.

I hope they start doing them for abortions also.

Why? Do you need medical attention?

Tell us about the solemn high mass you bragged about earlier. Is it an 'off limits' subject now that
you've opened your mouth?

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Last time, slippery man. All previous text removed to make this simple.

1) This is not a question: You asked about the effect shooting someone in
the head might have on the victim's finger, which might be ready to push a
button and detonate a bomb.

2) This is not a question: I explained that while it might produce a
twitch as the brain was disconnected from the spinal cord.

3) This *is* a question: If head shots are such a bad idea, why do YOU
suppose that air marshals are trained and expected to make that shot first,
as compared to municipal uniformed cops who are generally taught to go for
the torso?

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
Doug,
Harry actually posted pictures of his "expertise" with a handgun, stating
he
would use the handgun on anyone who came on his property uninvited. I
would
have posted the archived post, but that is why Harry does not allow his
posts to be archived.

I saw it, but it's not relevant to what I'm discussing with him.