"sf" > wrote in message
...
> Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people have
> been shot.


Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.

But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:48:21 PM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people have
>
> > been shot.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
>
>
>
> But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs" can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:
>
> I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.

Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
you'd rather hear only from one side.

Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
(or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:03:51 PM UTC-6, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
>
> > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
>
> > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
>
> > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
>
>
> Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
>
> you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
I don't listen to Progressive media any more than Conservative media. I stick to public radio, where they'll have one person on from Heritage, and another from Brookings, or one from The American Enterprise Institute, and another from Mother Jones. On the issue of gun control, they'd have someone from the NRA, and another person from Brady. In no case is there yelling, or making up stupid nicknames for the other side. They disagree, but civilly. Left wing radio (Pacifica) is batshit kooky. So is Right wing radio, and there's a lot more of it.
>
> Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
>
> (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
>
> is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
>
> the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>
Anyway, it was a joke. However stupid the listeners to Right wing radio are, even *they* wouldn't believe anything quite that wacky. Well, most of them wouldn't. At least I hope not.
>
--Bryan

John J wrote:

> >or making up stupid nicknames for the other side. They disagree, but civilly.
>
> An art you haven't mastered yet.

Can we call you John-John?

On Jan 23, 12:38*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> John J wrote:
> > >or making up stupid nicknames for the other side. *They disagree, but civilly.
>
> > An art you haven't mastered yet.
>
> Can we call you John-John?

John Boy.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:20:03 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

> I don't listen to Progressive media any more than Conservative media. I
> stick to public radio, where they'll have one person on from Heritage,
> and another from Brookings, or one from The American Enterprise
> Institute, and another from Mother Jones. On the issue of gun control,
> they'd have someone from the NRA, and another person from Brady. In no
> case is there yelling, or making up stupid nicknames for the other
> side. They disagree, but civilly.

Someone from the NRA providing lies and misinformation may have been
speaking in a well-mannered way, but it wasn't "civil".

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:03:17 PM UTC-6, gtr wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:20:03 -0800 (PST), Bryan
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't listen to Progressive media any more than Conservative media. I
>
> > stick to public radio, where they'll have one person on from Heritage,
>
> > and another from Brookings, or one from The American Enterprise
>
> > Institute, and another from Mother Jones. On the issue of gun control,
>
> > they'd have someone from the NRA, and another person from Brady. In no
>
> > case is there yelling, or making up stupid nicknames for the other
>
> > side. They disagree, but civilly.
>
>
>
> Someone from the NRA providing lies and misinformation may have been
>
> speaking in a well-mannered way, but it wasn't "civil".

A semantic disagreement. Even if I think someone's position is uncivilized,
if the person is "speaking in a well-mannered way," I call the *discussion*
itself, "civil."

--Bryan

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> Bryan wrote:
> >
> > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
> Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. But
> you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
> Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
> (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
> is on anti-depressants. There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
> the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>

The most recent case with the kid that killed his family appears to have
not been on psychiatric medication, however it appears he was isolated
and home schooled in an ultra religious family which would seem to be
comparably brain damaging.

On Jan 23, 12:31*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> > Bryan wrote:
>
> > > I bet there are right wingers on talk radio who are saying that the
> > > shooters are probably all Liberals who just did it to trick the
> > > American people into thinking guns are bad so the "jack-booted thugs"
> > > can take guns away from the *true* Amurricans.
>
> > Instead of guessing what they say you might listen to what they say. *But
> > you'd rather hear only from one side.
>
> > Your guess is wrong, but what they do say is that in practically every case
> > (or maybe every case, because I haven't found the exception yet) the shooter
> > is on anti-depressants. *There are plenty of depressed people who don't take
> > the drugs, but it appears that they refrain from shooting sprees.
>
> The most recent case with the kid that killed his family appears to have
> not been on psychiatric medication, however it appears he was isolated
> and home schooled in an ultra religious family which would seem to be
> comparably brain damaging.

Do not forget to mention that he lived to play his "very violent"
video games, and that he wanted to kill more, maybe some people at
Walmart, and his girlfriend's family.

N.

On Jan 22, 3:48*pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. *Multiple people have
> > been shot.
>
> Don't forget the one yesterday. *Five got killed.
>
> But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.

Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
EACH.

Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
Amendment rights," because that is not logical.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
>
> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> N.


Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
want to limit her to 7 rounds?

Bob

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy2 wrote:
>>
>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>
>> N.
>
>
> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>

Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
>> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>
>
> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>


Yep.

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Nancy2 wrote:
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>>
>>>> N.
>>>
>>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
>>> want to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>>
>
>
> Yep.
>

Nope. Extremeley rare. So rare they always make national news. We have
nearly 30 million guns in the US. By your theory we should be a very safe
country. As it is we rank very far down the list as the most dangerous.

On 22/01/2013 5:39 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really want
>> to limit her to 7 rounds?
>>
>
> Yeah like that happens nearly as often as these mass shootings? Right?
>

The more rabid gun nuts will cite the studies that point to the millions
of times citizens have used guns to defend themselves. I had to wonder
as I listened to the numbers grow almost expodentially larger.
You hear a noise in your garage, grab your handy gun to go out and
confront the the home invaders.... raccoon... home successfuly defended
with a gun.

zxcvbob wrote:

> > Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> > assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> > with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition?

> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
> want to limit her to 7 rounds?

Who dreamed that one up?

On 23/01/2013 10:59 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> zxcvbob wrote:
>
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition?
>
>> Some 230 pound drunk guy and 3 of his buddies decide to kick in his
>> ex-wife's door some night and teach her a little respect. You really
>> want to limit her to 7 rounds?
>
> Who dreamed that one up?
>
>
>

The guy wearing a tin hat.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
> > > have been shot.
> >
> > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
> >
> > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
>
> Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
> EACH.
>
> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.

In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
able to run away.

What if he hadn't been alone? Does that make it clear?

On TV you've seen people get shot once and go down. That's not reality.
When police shoot someone it usually takes several carefully aimed shots.
It takes several shots to stop an attacking dog.

Mass shooters have the opportunity to shoot cowering people in the head.
That is the factor that makes the difference, not the type of gun.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> Nancy2 wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > > "sf" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
> > > > have been shot.
> > >
> > > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
> > >
> > > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
> >
> > Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
> > EACH.
> >
> > Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> > assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> > with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> > in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> > Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> able to run away.

6 shots, 5 hits and fortunately he ran away. If he had been a psycho-ex
or had not been alone, those 6 shots would certainly have not been
enough to protect the woman and her children.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:13:18 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>Nancy2 wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 3:48 pm, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> > "sf" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > Another shooting on a college campus in Texas. Multiple people
>> > > have been shot.
>> >
>> > Don't forget the one yesterday. Five got killed.
>> >
>> > But whatever we do let's not discuss it - too soon.
>>
>> Chris Rock had the right idea, years ago....bullets should cost $5,000
>> EACH.
>>
>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
>In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>able to run away.
>

I think she was 5 for 6- but all in the head and shoulders from a few
feet away. That's the good and the bad of a .38-- a lady can shoot
it enough to be proficient- but you really need a head shot to stop
anyone. [for those who don't know the story- Google; Georgia woman
husband talking to 911]

>What if he hadn't been alone? Does that make it clear?
>
>On TV you've seen people get shot once and go down. That's not reality.
>When police shoot someone it usually takes several carefully aimed shots.
>It takes several shots to stop an attacking dog.

I wish that case was getting more press-- It also illustrates the
false impression so many folks have that just 'showing' a gun-- or
wounding an attacker will end an attack. If you aren't ready to take
the life-- find another way to avoid the confrontation.

Her husbands voice saying- shoot him again-- keep shooting. . . was as
big a part of her being alive as just having that gun.

The skeptic in me says there is more to this story than we know-- a
recently [well] trained gun toting woman repels an apparent burglar
who, instead of running when he found out someone was home, pursued
them through 2 locked doors to an attic- where he continued to attack
after being shot several times.

Jim

On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> able to run away.


Hit six times and "ran away"?????
I'll need a cite for that.



>

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> >> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> >> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> >> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> >> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> >> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
> >
> > In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> > able to run away.
>
> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.
>
> >

Hit 5 times out of 6 shots, and if not "ran" away at least got away into
his vehicle which he then crashed a few blocks away. This incident in
Georgia was widely reported in the media just a week or so ago.

On 23/01/2013 3:54 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>>> able to run away.
>>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>>
>>>
>
> Hit 5 times out of 6 shots, and if not "ran" away at least got away into
> his vehicle which he then crashed a few blocks away. This incident in
> Georgia was widely reported in the media just a week or so ago.
>
Okay.... no cite.... but he didn't exactly "run away".

Dave Smith wrote:

> > In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> > able to run away.

> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.

Would you believe.... she used a BB gun?

On 23/01/2013 3:56 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>>> able to run away.
>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>
> Would you believe.... she used a BB gun?
>
>
LOL

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>
>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
>> was
>> able to run away.
>
>
> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.
>
Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
So much for training, eh?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:13:03 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

> >
> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> So much for training, eh?
>

I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
the general gun toting public?

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

On 23/01/2013 4:13 PM, graham wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
>>> was
>>> able to run away.
>>
>>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>>
> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> So much for training, eh?
>
>


Yep. I remember reading about that one a few years ago. There were at
least five cops shot .... by "friendly fire"

Along a similar line was the case in New Orleans <?> where a guy bought
his grandmother a gun for self defence. For some reason, the cops
tried to raid her house. The original story was that she shot 5 cops
before gunned gunned her down. The subsequent investigation determined
that the cops were all shot by other cops.

I just don't get this whole firearms for self defence stuff. There are
lots of guns up here, but you have to jump through hoops to get the
licence to buy or own them, and they have to be safely stored here.
There is no doubt that there are some people who think they need them to
guard their castles but there are some facts to deal with.... like that
you can't do that here. You can only use lethal force to counter a
likely lethal force, and forget about using a handgun, because that will
be locked up and trigger locked and ammo stored elsewhere... by law. If
you have time to go and get the gun and unlock it and get the ammo....
you weren't in that much danger.


The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.

On 2013-01-22 22:16:05 +0000, Nancy2 said:

> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition?

If the ordinary citizen is a gun lobbyist, it's to ensure maximum
profits for gun manufacturers. If the ordinary citizen is someone whose
brain is addled by NRA's dark fantasy: When the US government turns
into a tyrannical dictatorship and they begin disarming citizens, the
owners of such weapons want to be able to kill as many police, National
Guard, and military as possible and thus save the country.

> And I am not interested in answers that say "it would be a first step
> in taking away Second Amendment rights," because that is not logical.

"Not logical" is the basic approach of that side of the argument;
purely emotional is all you will hear as an argument.