http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html

I don't think any "gun nuts" are going to click on something where the title
is "OT - for the gun nuts!"

btw, some say the teachers needed to be armed and the problem is upright
citizens are not carrying guns (and weapons) to protect themselves. But
Lanza's mother had a bevy of weapons to protect her.

On Dec 17, 10:55*am, "graham" > wrote:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html

This "futuristic design" was used in a 2006 Canadian mass shooting
(two dead, 19 wounded):

http://www.cx4storm.com/

Here's a comparison between the semiautomatic used in a 1989 Canadian
mass shooting ( 14 women, 5 men dead -- the killer opposed feminists)
and the AR-15:

http://www.ar15.com/content/swat/200...vs_Mini-14.pdf

And the professor denied tenure in Canada's 1992 mass shooting (four
dead, one wounded) used three handguns, none of which held more than 8
cartridges. Valery Fabrikant used to post regularly to Usenet.

A disgruntled Canadian Forces corporal used two of these submachine
guns (But Canadian-built) to shoot up Canada's General Assembly
Chamber in 1984, killing three and injuring 13:

http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/8.htm

"Somebody" > wrote in
:

> btw, some say the teachers needed to be armed and the problem
> is upright citizens are not carrying guns (and weapons) to
> protect themselves. But Lanza's mother had a bevy of weapons
> to protect her.

And of course, if you carry a gun, someone with a gun will target
you first and you have no guarantee carrying a gun will protect you
or anyone else. As an armed civilian, you very likely could kill
an innocent bystander or be shot by a police officer mistaking you
for the attacker(s).

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

spamtrap1888 > wrote in

s.com:

> A disgruntled Canadian Forces corporal used two of these
> submachine guns (But Canadian-built) to shoot up Canada's
> General Assembly Chamber in 1984, killing three and injuring
> 13

It was caporal Denis Lortie in the Assemblée nationale in Québec
(city). Canada does not have a General Assembly Chamber.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

On 17/12/2012 1:55 PM, graham wrote:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html
>
>
In the minds of some people, anyone who owns and uses guns, even only
for target shooting, is a "gun nut". I might be considered one by
people like that because I own a number of rifles, shotguns and
handguns, all of which are used exclusively for target shooting. I have
never advocated using guns for self defence and I am opposed to the idea
of people carrying handguns in public, open or concealed.

There really isn't much difference between an assault rifle and a target
rifle or hunting rifle. They come on different calibres and the bullets
share the same ballistics. Maybe it is the image of a combat weapon
that scares some people, or impresses the bejeepers out of the real gun
nuts.

What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the
comment from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental
health issue.

I do not question that there is a major problem with gun violence in the
US. I look at incidents like a young child dressed as a skunk getting
shot by an uncle, a yahoo shooting fleeing burglars in his neighbour's
hard, the daily crime related murders, the accidental shootings with
carelessly stored firearms, the drunken arguments that end up with
someone grabbing a gun and shooting a friend or loved one.

When someone barges into a school and shoots 20 children, a bunch of
adults and then himself.... it is a mental health issue.

On 17/12/2012 5:08 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:

> And of course, if you carry a gun, someone with a gun will target
> you first and you have no guarantee carrying a gun will protect you
> or anyone else. As an armed civilian, you very likely could kill
> an innocent bystander or be shot by a police officer mistaking you
> for the attacker(s).
>

One of the reasons that I reject the concept of open or concealed carry
is that anyone intent on robbing someone is more likely to shoot first
if he believes his victim is likely to be armed.

On Dec 17, 4:57*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 5:08 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
>
> > And of course, if you carry a gun, someone with a gun will target
> > you first and you have no guarantee carrying a gun will protect you
> > or anyone else. *As an armed civilian, you very likely could kill
> > an innocent bystander or be shot by a police officer mistaking you
> > for the attacker(s).
>
> One of the reasons that I reject the concept of open or concealed carry
> is that anyone intent on robbing someone is more likely to shoot first
> if he believes his victim is likely to be armed.

Who the **** would be dumb enough to rob someone who has a gun? Even
in the old west bandits wern't that stupid.

On 17/12/2012 6:15 PM, wrote:


> the reasons that I reject the concept of open or concealed carry
>> is that anyone intent on robbing someone is more likely to shoot first
>> if he believes his victim is likely to be armed.
>
> Who the **** would be dumb enough to rob someone who has a gun? Even
> in the old west bandits wern't that stupid.


Criminals tend to be stupid. Lots of people claim that burglars would
not break into a house if they thought the home owner would be armed,
but here are lots of guns on the black market that have been stolen from
homes. There are people out there who target homes with guns because
they stolen guns are worth good money on the black market.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:55:43 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html
>

OK- I don't know the guy [Neil Macdonald, apparently a Canadian
stationed in Washington DC] but he hooked me with his first line-
"Yet another "national discussion" about guns is under way here, and
it's so anti-rational, so politically cowardly, so …unbearably stupid
that you have to wonder how a nation that has enlightened the world in
so many other ways could wallow in this kind of delusion."

And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.

"shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial model of
the military M-16" [it isn't an assault rifle by any standard I know--
the magazine is too small and there is no full automatic option.]

Then he says;
"The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive bullets that
travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed to destroy human life
as efficiently as possible, causing maximum internal damage."

Again he is all wet. The M-16 was designed for war. It [and its
ammo] weighed about 1/2 of what the M-14 did. It had a plastic stock
that was expected to fair better in jungles; it also fired rounds
faster than the M-14. But trust me-- I've seen folks shot with .223
ammo [5.56 metric] and if I had my druthers, I'd take that over a 30
cal, 7.62, 9mm, a shotgun or an explosion.

Personally I think the whole AR-15 line [all the M-16 look alikes] are
ugly, and poor hunting rifles--- but they aren't assault weapons, and
they don't do 'maximum damage'.

He *does* take a fairly reasoned tone in the article and has some
points-- but I didn't see anything that he proposed that might
prevent the next one.

My mind is open -- but I'm leaning more towards feeling that most of
these are mental health problems, *not* gun problems.

Jim

On Dec 17, 5:27*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 6:15 PM, wrote:
>
> > the reasons that I reject the concept of open or concealed carry
> >> is that anyone intent on robbing someone is more likely to shoot first
> >> if he believes his victim is likely to be armed.
>
> > Who the **** would be dumb enough to rob someone who has a gun? *Even
> > in the old west bandits wern't that stupid.
>
> Criminals tend to be stupid. *Lots of people claim that burglars would
> not break into a house if they thought the home owner would be armed,
> but here are lots of guns on the black market that have been stolen from
> homes. There are people out there who target homes with guns because
> they stolen guns are worth good money on the black market.


I already reported my guns stolen. If I repoerted them again it would
be double jeopardy or something.

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

>> And of course, if you carry a gun, someone with a gun will
>> target you first and you have no guarantee carrying a gun
>> will protect you or anyone else. As an armed civilian, you
>> very likely could kill an innocent bystander or be shot by a
>> police officer mistaking you for the attacker(s).
>
> One of the reasons that I reject the concept of open or
> concealed carry is that anyone intent on robbing someone is
> more likely to shoot first if he believes his victim is likely
> to be armed.

And I reject the concept of an armed civilian population for the
reason that they are unlikely to be trained in hostage or other
similar situations.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

Jim Elbrecht > wrote in
news
> And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.
>
> "shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial
> model of the military M-16" [it isn't an assault rifle by any
> standard I know-- the magazine is too small and there is no
> full automatic option.]
>
> Then he says;
> "The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive
> bullets that travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed
> to destroy human life as efficiently as possible, causing
> maximum internal damage."

You are getting hung up on details. They don't really matter.

--

Traditions are group efforts to keep the unexpected
from happening.

-- Barbara Tober

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:11:03 -0600, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>Jim Elbrecht > wrote in
>news >
>> And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.
>>
>> "shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial
>> model of the military M-16" [it isn't an assault rifle by any
>> standard I know-- the magazine is too small and there is no
>> full automatic option.]

Aw, come on, if it looks like military rifle designed since WWII it must
be an assault weapon.

>>
>> Then he says;
>> "The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive
>> bullets that travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed
>> to destroy human life as efficiently as possible, causing
>> maximum internal damage."
>
>You are getting hung up on details. They don't really matter.

Ture, but it is wrong anyway. The .223 round was chosen because more
rounds could be carried by a soldier in the field and it was more likely
to cause dehabilitating, but survivalable injury than the .308 NATO or
..30-06.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 17/12/2012 1:55 PM, graham wrote:
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html
>>
>>
> In the minds of some people, anyone who owns and uses guns, even only for
> target shooting, is a "gun nut". I might be considered one by people like
> that because I own a number of rifles, shotguns and handguns, all of which
> are used exclusively for target shooting. I have never advocated using
> guns for self defence and I am opposed to the idea of people carrying
> handguns in public, open or concealed.
>
> There really isn't much difference between an assault rifle and a target
> rifle or hunting rifle. They come on different calibres and the bullets
> share the same ballistics. Maybe it is the image of a combat weapon that
> scares some people, or impresses the bejeepers out of the real gun nuts.
>
> What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the comment
> from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental health
> issue.
>
> I do not question that there is a major problem with gun violence in the
> US. I look at incidents like a young child dressed as a skunk getting
> shot by an uncle, a yahoo shooting fleeing burglars in his neighbour's
> hard, the daily crime related murders, the accidental shootings with
> carelessly stored firearms, the drunken arguments that end up with someone
> grabbing a gun and shooting a friend or loved one.
>
> When someone barges into a school and shoots 20 children, a bunch of
> adults and then himself.... it is a mental health issue.


There was someone on NPR earlier today that said almost all deadly shootings
have been young males 17-24 that had mental problems. Mostly with
depression and a feeling of hopelessness.

Also I read that although the US has much higher number of deaths by gun,
that the rate of crimes of burglary and muggings are about the same as
countries that have strict gun control. The point being the amount of crime
not being so different, the difference is access to guns.

On 2012-12-17, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:

> And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.

Jes skimming the insanely long article, I couldn't tell if he was
for guns or against them. Regardless, he lost all credibility with
the statement: "Some of the killers wore body armour and fired weapons
that scare Marines."

In short, he don't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-12-17, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
>
>> And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.
>
> Jes skimming the insanely long article, I couldn't tell if he was
> for guns or against them. Regardless, he lost all credibility with
> the statement: "Some of the killers wore body armour and fired weapons
> that scare Marines."
>
> In short, he don't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>
So, which are you? An arsehole or a hole in the ground?

Robert Klute > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:11:03 -0600, Michel Boucher
> > wrote:
>
>> Jim Elbrecht > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.
>>>
>>> "shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial
>>> model of the military M-16" [it isn't an assault rifle by any
>>> standard I know-- the magazine is too small and there is no
>>> full automatic option.]
>
> Aw, come on, if it looks like military rifle designed since WWII it must
> be an assault weapon.
>
>>>
>>> Then he says;
>>> "The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive
>>> bullets that travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed
>>> to destroy human life as efficiently as possible, causing
>>> maximum internal damage."
>>
>> You are getting hung up on details. They don't really matter.
>
> Ture, but it is wrong anyway. The .223 round was chosen because more
> rounds could be carried by a soldier in the field and it was more likely
> to cause dehabilitating, but survivalable injury than the .308 NATO or
> .30-06.

First thing I saw in the army, the m16 exploded a watermelon vs large bore
slow shot, just made hole.

Survive that.

Greg

On 2012-12-18, gregz > wrote:

> First thing I saw in the army, the m16 exploded a watermelon vs large bore
> slow shot, just made hole.
>
> Survive that.

Another without a clue.

When an 800lb grizzly is charging straight for you, believe me, yer
gonna want the "large bore slow shot".

nb

gregz > wrote:

>Robert Klute > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:11:03 -0600, Michel Boucher
>> > wrote:
>>

-snip-
>>
>> Ture, but it is wrong anyway. The .223 round was chosen because more
>> rounds could be carried by a soldier in the field and it was more likely
>> to cause dehabilitating, but survivalable injury than the .308 NATO or
>> .30-06.
>
>First thing I saw in the army, the m16 exploded a watermelon vs large bore
>slow shot, just made hole.
>
>Survive that.
>

I'll have to call BS on that. I've seen a few folks shot by various
weapons and the M-16 is the one I'd most like [least dislike?] to be
shot by. [especially with military ammo]

I've never shot a watermelon with a shotgun, but I have shot a 2
gallon metal can filled with water with spectacular results. A 223
makes a hole of less than a 1/4" on one side and might tumble before
going out the other-- but the can stays intact.

Not saying you didn't *see* that-- but one of our instructors at Camp
Lejeune blew up a jeep with some 'special ammo' as a demonstration one
day. it was a year later that I found out that the 'special ammo'
was a hell box held by another instructor. One shoots- the other
blows up the jeep. It was a neat trick.

Jim

On 2012-12-18, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:

> gallon metal can filled with water with spectacular results. A 223
> makes a hole of less than a 1/4" on one side and might tumble before
> going out the other-- but the can stays intact.


Short Course on Simple Ballistic Theory

A 5.56x45mm NATO round (.223") does travel at close to 3000fps. This
creates what is called hydrostatic shock or a shock wave, in the
medium it hits, specially soft tissue. This shock wave opens a larger
wound cavity than the intitial 1/4" dia bullet diameter leaves at
slower velocities. OTOH, the small light bullet will typically
disintergrate (fall apart) when hitting anything hard, like a bone.
For this reason, these small light bullets are considered inhumane on
large dumb game animals like deer, elk, etc. The "big and slow"
bullet like a 45-70 will not be slowed by bone and will often break
said bone. This is to be desired if the animal weighs half a ton and
is coming at you like a freight train. IOW, you may not kill said
large charging about-to-make-you-a-smear animal, but if you can "turn"
or de-rail it, before it makes you said smear, you gonna be a whole
lot happier come dinner time.

nb

On Dec 17, 2:52*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 1:55 PM, graham wrote:>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...rfa-macdonald-

> In the minds of some people, anyone who owns and uses guns, even only
> for target shooting, is a "gun nut".

Sure, how about ignoring them? Or are you setting up a strawman?


> There really isn't much difference between an assault rifle and a target
> rifle or hunting rifle. *They come on different calibres and the bullets
> share the same ballistics.

Well shit, I thought you knew something about guns, well you said you
do anyway.
But nope, you don't, or you are carelessly conflating and simplifying
in order to advance bullshit.
Bolt action is the preferred choice for hunting rifles. An no hunter
would ever consider even wanting a clip of more than 5-10 rounds, and
most of those would be unused 99% of the time. No real hunter would
purchase a Bushmaster for any game. Any hunter can take a glance at a
rifle and know if it's for hunting game, or not.

Hunting rifles:
http://www.weatherby.com/

http://www.winchesterguns.com/produc...sp?family=001C


Not hunting:
http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles.aspx



>Maybe it is the image of a combat weapon
> that impresses the bejeepers out of the real gun
> nuts.

Ya think? Just mebbe?

> What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the
> comment from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental
> health issue.

People being human is suddenly a mental health issue?


> * When someone barges into a school and shoots 20 children, a bunch of
> adults and then himself.... it is a mental health issue.

Which, absent access to firearms would not have ended this way. Europe
and Asia statistically have the same # of nutso's, but absent
firearms, they pound sand.

Try again, be honest and try not repeating the words and ideas of your
betters from FAUX news.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> gregz > wrote:
>
> >First thing I saw in the army, the m16 exploded a watermelon vs large bore
> >slow shot, just made hole.
>
> I'll have to call BS on that. I've seen a few folks shot by various
> weapons and the M-16 is the one I'd most like [least dislike?] to be
> shot by. [especially with military ammo]

It's physics. Energy is 1/2 mv^2 while momentum is mv.
An increase in v (velocity) has a much greater effect
on energy than does an increase in m (mass). But, they
both have the same effect on momentum. So, for the same
amount of energy from the same amount of gunpowder, the
v^2 term means the small fast bullet has much less mass
than the big slow bullet, so it has much less momentum
even though it has the same energy.

A small bullet with lots of energy but little momentum
will readily give up that energy on impact, resulting
in an impact that resembles an explosion. A big slow
bullet with the same amount of energy and lots of
momentum will tend to punch through the target and
keep going.

notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-12-18, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
>
>> gallon metal can filled with water with spectacular results. A 223
>> makes a hole of less than a 1/4" on one side and might tumble before
>> going out the other-- but the can stays intact.
>
>
>Short Course on Simple Ballistic Theory

Even shorter-- It *is* the 21st century, after all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSq4CQpgWv4

Less than a minute- makes my point.

3 shots- a 5.56 [.223- like the Sandy Hook shooter used], a 7.62, and
a .45 - all into their own watermelon.

Jim

On Dec 18, 11:47*am, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
> notbob > wrote:
> >On 2012-12-18, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:
>
> >> gallon metal can filled with water with spectacular results. * *A 223
> >> makes a hole of less than a 1/4" on one side and might tumble before
> >> going out the other-- but the can stays intact.
>
> >Short Course on Simple Ballistic Theory
>
> Even shorter-- *It *is* the 21st century, after all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSq4CQpgWv4
>
> Less than a minute- makes my point.
>
> 3 shots- a 5.56 [.223- like the Sandy Hook shooter used], a 7.62, and
> a .45 - all into their own watermelon.
>
> Jim


Now to find a classroom full of watermelons

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:55:43 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html
>


I wonder what the odds are in Vegas if people are betting whether or
not our "Best Congress Money Can Buy" will vote to disarm the American
People. Many members of Congress are history for the mere mention of
disarming the American People.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:52:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the
>comment from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental
>health issue.

This is interesting. I had to read this information on a London
newspaper's website. Apparently, the mother of the shooter was a
"prepper" who believed the end of the world was near. Is that insanity
or what? So, I guess we know who to go round up and disarm now!

On 18/12/2012 12:56 PM, tutall wrote:

>> This country needs to figure out that ignoring mental illness causes just as
>> much heartache and tragedy as ignoring physical illness, and is equally
>> capable of devastating multiple lives.
>
> I won't argue with this. Mental health is almost always targeted first
> when addressing budget cuts. Hell, rehabilitation in all it's aspects
> has been swept under the rug.


It's not just the budget cuts. It is a matter of human rights. We used
to lock people up if there were a danger to society or to themselves. We
don't do that anymore except in severe cases..... obviously determined
after the fact. We can't even force mental patients to take their
medication.



> Today our support system is as bad and unsupported as it's ever been
> in my lifetime. However, that discussion should not be allowed to
> derail the other, and visa versa. And from all appearances, that's how
> it's being used, along with the other usual suspects of video games
> and Hollywood, as a way to derail the conversation from gun
> control(s).
>
> Not that those are off limits to discussion, but those things don't
> shoot bullets either.

> Am a lifelong hunter, own 2 rifles, 6 shotguns, no pistols.

I used to hunt but have not done it in many years. I shoot only at
targets, either skeet or paper. I own several handguns, all used only
for target shooting. I have never even thought about using one of them
them for self protection.

On 2012-12-18, Jim Elbrecht > wrote:

> a .45 - all into their own watermelon.

Watermelons can't kill/eat you.

Each has its own strengths. My point was, a small entry wound and
lack of hydrostatic shock does not mean a projectile is not lethal.
The .223 is more of a disabler. It chops up soft tissue. It's
illegal to use for hunting larger sports game cuz it wounds but
doesn't kill, which govt bureaucracies consider inhuman. In warfare,
that is not a concern. In fact, a wound is more desirable as it ties
up even more ppl/resources in med support positions. It is NOT more
lethal than other larger/slower bullets. It was created because, yes,
it CAN wound/kill, but bottom line, soldiers can carry more rounds
(shots) per equal amt of wt.

nb

On 18/12/2012 1:21 PM, William wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:52:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the
>> comment from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental
>> health issue.
>
> This is interesting. I had to read this information on a London
> newspaper's website. Apparently, the mother of the shooter was a
> "prepper" who believed the end of the world was near. Is that insanity
> or what? So, I guess we know who to go round up and disarm now!
>


I guess that supports the idea that there was some craziness. People
like that tend to be a little less than sane, and apples don't fall far
from the tree. Apparently the guy had been taken out of the local school
and was home schooled. I am quite sure that there are some people out
there who can probably teach their own kids better than some teachers
can, and that some home situations are more conducive to learning than
some schools. The problem is that a lot of the people who want to home
school their kids do it because they don't want the kids to be
contaminated with normal thoughts and ideas. There is usually some deep
religious angle there.

On 2012-12-18, Dave Smith > wrote:

> When you have people going on murderous rampages there is no question
> about the person having a mental illness issue.

I think there is considerable question as to whether or not these ppl are
"mentally ill".

There's an interesting documentary available (streaming on Netflix)
called Gone Postal. It talks about the increase and rise of this
unfortunate phenomena in a straighforward and logical manner. More
ppl go off their nut due to anger, frustration, feelings of
helplessness, and marginalization, than actual mental defect. How
many times have perfectly sane everyday ppl said of a jerk boss, they
wouldn't miss 'im if (s)he got hit by a bus. Well, some ppl eventually
go find themselves a bus! Like one fellow puts it, "You corner an
animal and it will come out fighting".

nb

Dave Smith wrote:

> In the minds of some people, anyone who owns and uses guns, even only
> for target shooting, is a "gun nut". I might be considered one by
> people like that because I own a number of rifles, shotguns and
> handguns, all of which are used exclusively for target shooting.

The next burden you'll endure will be a huge tax on ammo. Too bad you'll
suffer the same fate as the psychos and wannabe vigilantes.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:21:31 -0500, William >
wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:52:23 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >What I objected to in the article is where the author rejected the
> >comment from a Utah congressmen who commented on the underlying mental
> >health issue.
>
> This is interesting. I had to read this information on a London
> newspaper's website. Apparently, the mother of the shooter was a
> "prepper" who believed the end of the world was near. Is that insanity
> or what? So, I guess we know who to go round up and disarm now!

If she was, they haven't made it part of the reporting over here.
Lot's of people (here) prep for natural disasters, but they are not
Doomsday preppers. The East Coast just went through super storm Sandy
and is still suffering the aftermath; so that kind of prepping makes
sense to me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Dec 18, 12:05*pm, sf > wrote:

> If she was, they haven't made it part of the reporting over here.

These reports started hitting yesterday.
You're obviously not obsessive compulsive enough over this.

On Dec 18, 12:28*pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:36*am, tutall > wrote:

> So, you prefer high power rifles to low power pistols? That says a lot
> about you

What is your malfunction?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:12:22 -0800 (PST), tutall >
wrote:

> On Dec 18, 12:05*pm, sf > wrote:
>
> > If she was, they haven't made it part of the reporting over here.
>
> These reports started hitting yesterday.
> You're obviously not obsessive compulsive enough over this.
>
>
I guess so!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Dec 18, 12:52*pm, tutall > wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:28*pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 11:36*am, tutall > wrote:
> > So, you prefer high power rifles to low power pistols? That says a lot
> > about you
>
> What is your malfunction?

All firearms can be demonized.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:12:22 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 18, 12:05 pm, sf > wrote:
>>
>> > If she was, they haven't made it part of the reporting over here.
>>
>> These reports started hitting yesterday.
>> You're obviously not obsessive compulsive enough over this.
>>
>>
> I guess so!

you know-- there are 24 hour OCD news channels out there, don't you? Turn
on, Tune in, flip-out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5Ikr_eI5M

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2012-12-18, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> When you have people going on murderous rampages there is no question
>> about the person having a mental illness issue.
>
> I think there is considerable question as to whether or not these ppl are
> "mentally ill".
>
> There's an interesting documentary available (streaming on Netflix)
> called Gone Postal. It talks about the increase and rise of this
> unfortunate phenomena in a straighforward and logical manner. More
> ppl go off their nut due to anger, frustration, feelings of
> helplessness, and marginalization, than actual mental defect. How
> many times have perfectly sane everyday ppl said of a jerk boss, they
> wouldn't miss 'im if (s)he got hit by a bus. Well, some ppl eventually
> go find themselves a bus! Like one fellow puts it, "You corner an
> animal and it will come out fighting".
>
> nb


How many ppl do you know that when you look at their lives closely, you say:
that person is a normal well-adjusted individual!
(present newsgroup excluded, of course.)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:11:03 -0500, "Somebody" >
wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:12:22 -0800 (PST), tutall >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 18, 12:05 pm, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If she was, they haven't made it part of the reporting over here.
> >>
> >> These reports started hitting yesterday.
> >> You're obviously not obsessive compulsive enough over this.
> >>
> >>
> > I guess so!
>
> you know-- there are 24 hour OCD news channels out there, don't you? Turn
> on, Tune in, flip-out.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-5Ikr_eI5M
>
I watched regular network TV last night and skipped the "news" hour.
Whatever news I saw this morning had nothing about her being a
Doomsday prepper. Maybe Fox is claiming it, but after all they got so
wrong the first day or two - CNN & MSNBC haven't gone there (at least
while I was watching). I have a Thin Man movie on at the moment.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.