Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, these are good questions you're bringing up. What do you think? Should a previously convicted felon someday be able to own a gun? How about someone with a mental disorder? How about someone with a disabling addiction? And do you think these laws should be local or federal? On Sunday, June 8, 2014 10:16 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/8/2014 4:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, it is complicated. Evidently we're not even able to keep guns away from previously convicted felons or the mentally unstable. So maybe we should all be armed. BUT...what kind of effect does that produce in the national consciousness, everyone packing heat, running around thinking they might be shot at any moment, fear chemicals triggering the fight or flight response in everyone. Not a very uplifting atmosphere. To say the least! Yes, it is complicated and not quite so simple as just banning all private gun ownership. So, if you're a convicted felon, you can never again own a gun? If you've ever seen a psychiatric therapist, you lose your civil rights to defend yourself from killers, even though you're cured? http://althouse.blogspot.com/dissembling-at-nyt.html Student With Pepper Spray Disarmed Gunman in Seattle. A gun would have worked better, but it happened in a gun-free zone, so only gunmen have guns in there. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/10/2014 7:11 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, these are good questions you're bringing up. What do you think? Should a previously convicted felon someday be able to own a gun? How about someone with a mental disorder? How about someone with a disabling addiction? And do you think these laws should be local or federal? I'm no expert, so I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't go anywhere without being armed with something. But, it depends on where you're going. I don't go anywhere south of the San Antonio River. When I am at the new pad, I keep all the doors locked. If I'm in my car, I always keep an eye out in the rear view mirror. Call me paranoid, but that's the way I see it. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Network: http://youtu.be/MTN3s2iVKKI On Sunday, June 8, 2014 10:16 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/8/2014 4:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com mailto:sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, it is complicated. Evidently we're not even able to keep guns away from previously convicted felons or the mentally unstable. So maybe we should all be armed. BUT...what kind of effect does that produce in the national consciousness, everyone packing heat, running around thinking they might be shot at any moment, fear chemicals triggering the fight or flight response in everyone. Not a very uplifting atmosphere. To say the least! Yes, it is complicated and not quite so simple as just banning all private gun ownership. So, if you're a convicted felon, you can never again own a gun? If you've ever seen a psychiatric therapist, you lose your civil rights to defend yourself from killers, even though you're cured? / //http://althouse.blogspot.com/dissembling-at-nyt.html http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-evidence-of-dissembling-at-nyt.html Student With Pepper Spray Disarmed Gunman in Seattle./ A gun would have worked better, but it happened in a gun-free zone, so only gunmen have guns in there. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/7/2014 10:17 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Do we arm teachers and administrators? Have armed guards patrolling the hallways? Of course - who else is best responsible for protecting students at school? We already have armed guards at many schools, patrolling the hallways, parking lots and playgrounds. Any school that doesn't have an armed guard is not secure from another possible tragedy. It's just common sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/7/2014 10:17 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: And even if a balanced citizen has a gun and is present at a bank robbery, how can we be sure that he or she will react appropriately under such stressful circumstances? Without thorough and proper training, such a person might accidentally shoot someone other than the robbers. SEATTLE -- Many young men and women put their lives in danger Thursday to help and protect fellow students when a gunman barged into Seattle Pacific University and opened fire. One person in particular, engineering student Jon Meis, confronted and tackled the shooter as he attempted to reload his gun. Meis, a senior, is a volunteer at the security desk in Otto Miller Hall. He saw the guy and got his pepper spray, sprayed him and tackled him, said Meis' friend Patrick Maguire... 'SPU student praised as hero for actions during shooting' http://www.komonews.com/news/local/hero--262076251.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, see, a person can be a true hero even without carrying a gun (-: On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:14 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/7/2014 10:17 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: And even if a balanced citizen has a gun and is present at a bank robbery, how can we be sure that he or she will react appropriately under such stressful circumstances? Without thorough and proper training, such a person might accidentally shoot someone other than the robbers. SEATTLE -- Many young men and women put their lives in danger Thursday to help and protect fellow students when a gunman barged into Seattle Pacific University and opened fire. One person in particular, engineering student Jon Meis, confronted and tackled the shooter as he attempted to reload his gun. Meis, a senior, is a volunteer at the security desk in Otto Miller Hall. He saw the guy and got his pepper spray, sprayed him and tackled him, said Meis' friend Patrick Maguire... 'SPU student praised as hero for actions during shooting' http://www.komonews.com/news/local/hero--262076251.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, if we think about all the different venues of mass murders, then we'd have armed guards patrolling even fast food restaurants and post offices! Is this really what we want?! On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:10 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/7/2014 10:17 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Do we arm teachers and administrators? Have armed guards patrolling the hallways? Of course - who else is best responsible for protecting students at school? We already have armed guards at many schools, patrolling the hallways, parking lots and playgrounds. Any school that doesn't have an armed guard is not secure from another possible tragedy. It's just common sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/7/2014 10:17 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Do we arm teachers and administrators? Have armed guards patrolling the hallways? Of course - who else is best responsible for protecting students at school? We already have armed guards at many schools, patrolling the hallways, parking lots and playgrounds. Any school that doesn't have an armed guard is not secure from another possible tragedy. It's just common sense.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/8/2014 7:10 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, see, a person can be a true hero even without carrying a gun (-: The point is, he fought back saving the lives of countless people. Pepper spray is a weapon. /Everyone/ should be able to protect themselves, their family and their neighbors from life-threatening aggression. It's a civic duty, just like voting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, I totally agree that everyone should be able to protect themselves and others. I think we only disagree about the role of guns in that scenario. Thank you for dialoguing with me about it. On Sunday, June 8, 2014 11:58 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/8/2014 7:10 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, see, a person can be a true hero even without carrying a gun (-: The point is, he fought back saving the lives of countless people. Pepper spray is a weapon. Everyone should be able to protect themselves, their family and their neighbors from life-threatening aggression. It's a civic duty, just like voting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Yes, pepper spray took down the would be mass murderer. He carries it with him always, according to the article in the paper. A good argument for stronger gun control. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Richard, I totally agree that everyone should be able to protect themselves and others. I think we only disagree about the role of guns in that scenario. Thank you for dialoguing with me about it. On Sunday, June 8, 2014 11:58 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/8/2014 7:10 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, see, a person can be a true hero even without carrying a gun (-: The point is, he fought back saving the lives of countless people. Pepper spray is a weapon. Everyone should be able to protect themselves, their family and their neighbors from life-threatening aggression. It's a civic duty, just like voting.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/8/2014 12:43 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, pepper spray took down the would be mass murderer. He carries it with him always, according to the article in the paper. A good argument for stronger gun control. Apparently the hero was on security duty. I'm not against gun control - which we already have. The problem isn't gun ownership by citizens in good standing, but how we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced. In order to do that effectively, we'd have to have a national registry of everyone who ever visited a guidance counselor and got a referral to see a shrink. It's complicated. /First, they come for the mentally imbalanced; then they come for the retarded and lame; then they come for anyone that acts or looks different./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
He was a hall monitor. The fact that he carried pepper spray on him was a personal decision, not related to his hall monitor job. The seemingly accepted societal and personal belief system that violence is the answer to conflict and one's internal rage - mentally unbalanced or not - is the problem. In terms of operational methods - gun control in its current form is a joke. This shooter had a lot more in his background than seeing a guidance counselor. Driver's licenses are already tagged in different ways and monitored - society could start there. Guns in urban areas are unnecessary, imho. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/8/2014 12:43 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, pepper spray took down the would be mass murderer. He carries it with him always, according to the article in the paper. A good argument for stronger gun control. Apparently the hero was on security duty. I'm not against gun control - which we already have. The problem isn't gun ownership by citizens in good standing, but how we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced. In order to do that effectively, we'd have to have a national registry of everyone who ever visited a guidance counselor and got a referral to see a shrink. It's complicated. First, they come for the mentally imbalanced; then they come for the retarded and lame; then they come for anyone that acts or looks different.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, it is complicated. Evidently we're not even able to keep guns away from previously convicted felons or the mentally unstable. So maybe we should all be armed. BUT...what kind of effect does that produce in the national consciousness, everyone packing heat, running around thinking they might be shot at any moment, fear chemicals triggering the fight or flight response in everyone. Not a very uplifting atmosphere. To say the least! On Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:47 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/8/2014 12:43 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Yes, pepper spray took down the would be mass murderer. He carries it with him always, according to the article in the paper. A good argument for stronger gun control. Apparently the hero was on security duty. I'm not against gun control - which we already have. The problem isn't gun ownership by citizens in good standing, but how we keep guns out of the hands of the mentally imbalanced. In order to do that effectively, we'd have to have a national registry of everyone who ever visited a guidance counselor and got a referral to see a shrink. It's complicated. First, they come for the mentally imbalanced; then they come for the retarded and lame; then they come for anyone that acts or looks different.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/8/2014 4:24 PM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Richard, it is complicated. Evidently we're not even able to keep guns away from previously convicted felons or the mentally unstable. So maybe we should all be armed. BUT...what kind of effect does that produce in the national consciousness, everyone packing heat, running around thinking they might be shot at any moment, fear chemicals triggering the fight or flight response in everyone. Not a very uplifting atmosphere. To say the least! Yes, it is complicated and not quite so simple as just banning all private gun ownership. So, if you're a convicted felon, you can never again own a gun? If you've ever seen a psychiatric therapist, you lose your civil rights to defend yourself from killers, even though you're cured? / //http://althouse.blogspot.com/dissembling-at-nyt.html http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-evidence-of-dissembling-at-nyt.html Student With Pepper Spray Disarmed Gunman in Seattle./ A gun would have worked better, but it happened in a gun-free zone, so only gunmen have guns in there. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/8/2014 3:32 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: In terms of operational methods - gun control in its current form is a joke. This shooter had a lot more in his background than seeing a guidance counselor. Driver's licenses are already tagged in different ways and monitored - society could start there. Guns in urban areas are unnecessary, imho. Guns are very necessary for criminals to accomplish their goals. So, if you take away law abiding citizens guns, the only people left with guns are the police and the criminals. So, I hope for your sake that you get some pepper spray and learn how to use it. /First, they come for your Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles bedspread./ Then, they put all your medical records online. Then they force you to register in a national gun ownership list. Then, they come for your guns; then they take away your civil rights. Then they censor the news and the press and arrest you for speaking out. Then they pass a law against using any form of encryption. Then, they start spying on you, opening your mail, listening in on your private phone calls, tracking your internet activity, grabbing your web cam videos, and then they compile your face image and put it all together all in a database. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/07/stephen-fry-denounces-uk-government-edward-snowden-nsa-revelations
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, as horrible as mass murders are, especially in schools, I'm not sure what the solution is. Do we arm teachers and administrators? Have armed guards patrolling the hallways? In the broader picture of murder, I'm not sure that arming citizens is the answer. Already the laws governing the purchase of guns don't seem to be good enough to keep them out of the hands of severely unbalanced individuals. And even if a balanced citizen has a gun and is present at a bank robbery, how can we be sure that he or she will react appropriately under such stressful circumstances? Without thorough and proper training, such a person might accidentally shoot someone other than the robbers. On Friday, June 6, 2014 8:31 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/6/2014 12:48 PM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: they were mainly afraid of slave revolts as I have said before here - you talk about the 2nd Amendment like it is a god which it isn't. This historical footnote probably doesn't have any relevance to modern interpretations of the Second Amendment - slavery has been outlawed. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:58 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably never going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. There was no killer until the police arrived. Then the shooter killed three mounties and wounded two others. In this case, the police seemed to have stood around like ducks in a shooting gallery (actually, some were shot while still in their cars). Maybe Richard wants a return to the good old wild west where everyone carried a gun and differences were hardly discussed, you just whipped out your six shooter and blasted the guy who made you mad enough away. Yup, you got troubles there in the US of A where many think the only solution to gun violence is gun violence. Here in Canada multiple shootings are so rare you get these poor mounties hitting the dirt before they even knew what hit them. Total surprise attack.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/6/2014 6:27 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. So many questions, Share - you're actually making me think and sort this out in my head. Thanks. My position is that every home should be having a gun for the self-defense of the resident, their family, and their neighbors, unless the resident is certified insane, a felon, or a minor, in which case it is unlawful for them to own a firearm. Many citizens are already armed at home where it is legal to own a gun, which is in most states in the U.S. and Alaska. Around here in rural areas, almost everybody has a long gun in their home to be used for self-defense or for sport, or for hunting. In Texas, it is legal to carry a rifle or pistol in your vehicle if you coming or going to a gun show, a hunting trip, or a gun sporting event. Some conscientious citizens in towns and cities even have a carry permit and they may be armed with a concealed handgun. The debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns openly in plain sight. I have some reservations about this, but I will admit that the argument makes sense. Would anyone rob a bank if the patrons in line all had a gun in their pocket, on their hip, or a rifle over their shoulder? It's not complicated. /In an ideal society there would be no murder./ The worst case of mass murder in Texas occurred at a Luby's Cafeteria, where a guy came barging in an shot up the place killing over a dozen people. If someone in there had a concealed handgun, they could have shot the guy between the eyes the instant he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone. It took only a few minutes to mow down the defenseless diners like they were sitting ducks. What a tragedy! What we need to do is face the reality that people in this country have access to guns and that is probably not going to change any time soon. That is, unless we vote in an government that sets aside the Second Amendment and sends in federal troops to confiscate everyone's firearms, thus starting a civil war between the federal government and the states. It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. First, they take away your civil rights, then they come for the guns, then they come for the gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and transgenders; then they come for the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims; and /then they come for the TMers./ /Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray./ That's what I think. Note: My uncle is a custom gunsmith in Abilene and owner of one of the oldest gun shops in Texas. I've spent countless hours with this guy talking about this issue - I may be biased. Go figure. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:58 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com mailto:awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably /never/ going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
As usual you are an idiot and your thinking, if it can be called such, is flawed. Anyone who wants to rob a bank is going to do so regardless of how many bank patrons are armed. The crook would simply try to insure he was better armed than any potential citizen hero. Who is gonna try to whip out a snub nosed .38 on someone wearing body armor who has an Uzi pointed at you? Most people who buy handguns for the just in case scenarios never bother to train with them and have no idea how to aim and fire under stressful circumstances. The end result of having every citizen armed is when trouble starts the casualty list would be MUCH higher from friendly fire coming from panicky citizens shooting wild. Remember, guns and the ammo they fire didn't come out of a Buddhist stupa, so you don't know what your hind end from a hole in the ground when it comes to good sense with guns. From: 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada On 6/6/2014 6:27 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. So many questions, Share - you're actually making me think and sort this out in my head. Thanks. My position is that every home should be having a gun for the self-defense of the resident, their family, and their neighbors, unless the resident is certified insane, a felon, or a minor, in which case it is unlawful for them to own a firearm. Many citizens are already armed at home where it is legal to own a gun, which is in most states in the U.S. and Alaska. Around here in rural areas, almost everybody has a long gun in their home to be used for self-defense or for sport, or for hunting. In Texas, it is legal to carry a rifle or pistol in your vehicle if you coming or going to a gun show, a hunting trip, or a gun sporting event. Some conscientious citizens in towns and cities even have a carry permit and they may be armed with a concealed handgun. The debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns openly in plain sight. I have some reservations about this, but I will admit that the argument makes sense. Would anyone rob a bank if the patrons in line all had a gun in their pocket, on their hip, or a rifle over their shoulder? It's not complicated. In an ideal society there would be no murder. The worst case of mass murder in Texas occurred at a Luby's Cafeteria, where a guy came barging in an shot up the place killing over a dozen people. If someone in there had a concealed handgun, they could have shot the guy between the eyes the instant he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone. It took only a few minutes to mow down the defenseless diners like they were sitting ducks. What a tragedy! What we need to do is face the reality that people in this country have access to guns and that is probably not going to change any time soon. That is, unless we vote in an government that sets aside the Second Amendment and sends in federal troops to confiscate everyone's firearms, thus starting a civil war between the federal government and the states. It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. First, they take away your civil rights, then they come for the guns, then they come for the gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and transgenders; then they come for the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims; and then they come for the TMers. Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. That's what I think. Note: My uncle is a custom gunsmith in Abilene and owner of one of the oldest gun shops in Texas. I've spent countless hours with this guy talking about this issue - I may be biased. Go figure. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:58 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably never going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/6/2014 6:27 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. So many questions, Share - you're actually making me think and sort this out in my head. Thanks. My position is that every home should be having a gun for the self-defense of the resident, their family, and their neighbors, unless the resident is certified insane, a felon, or a minor, in which case it is unlawful for them to own a firearm. Many citizens are already armed at home where it is legal to own a gun, which is in most states in the U.S. and Alaska. Around here in rural areas, almost everybody has a long gun in their home to be used for self-defense or for sport, or for hunting. In Texas, it is legal to carry a rifle or pistol in your vehicle if you coming or going to a gun show, a hunting trip, or a gun sporting event. Some conscientious citizens in towns and cities even have a carry permit and they may be armed with a concealed handgun. The debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns openly in plain sight. I have some reservations about this, but I will admit that the argument makes sense. Would anyone rob a bank if the patrons in line all had a gun in their pocket, on their hip, or a rifle over their shoulder? It's not complicated. In an ideal society there would be no murder. The worst case of mass murder in Texas occurred at a Luby's Cafeteria, where a guy came barging in an shot up the place killing over a dozen people. If someone in there had a concealed handgun, they could have shot the guy between the eyes the instant he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone. It took only a few minutes to mow down the defenseless diners like they were sitting ducks. What a tragedy! What we need to do is face the reality that people in this country have access to guns and that is probably not going to change any time soon. That is, unless we vote in an government that sets aside the Second Amendment and sends in federal troops to confiscate everyone's firearms, thus starting a civil war between the federal government and the states. It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. Take away that civil right and see if I care. It is a right not based on any concept of civility I know of. Guns are so lethal and so powerful that they have absolutely no place in the hands of human beings that are not actually engaged in some kind of lunatic war. This idea of wanting to maintain a civil right that can only bring bloodshed is sheer idiocy and ignorance. I know there are times if you are faced with a life-threatening situation where you wished you could meet that threat with fire power. Having your life or safety threatened is terrifying but does it justify blowing someone away? Humans who shoot other humans and feel justified in doing so should be treated like the social misfits they apparently are and lose other rights as a consequence. This goes for those who have done so in self defense. Confiscating every gun is virtually impossible but start by eliminating this outdated right first. Of course, I know this will never happen - you'd have to gun down or incarcerate half the population of America in order to wrestle their precious firearms out of their hands. America has a really, really big problem on their hands and it is only going to get much worse. As long as people believe blindly in this mistaken notion of their civil right to carry a lethal weapon you've got no solution. Welcome to armed America. First, they take away your civil rights, then they come for the guns, then they come for the gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and transgenders; then they come for the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims; and then they come for the TMers. Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. That's what I think. Note: My uncle is a custom gunsmith in Abilene and owner of one of the oldest gun shops in Texas. I've spent countless hours with this guy talking about this issue - I may be biased. Go figure. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:58 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... mailto:punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... wrote : It
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, thank you so much for your reply. Whether or not you're biased, you make some good points and got me rethinking the whole thing. And I just googled on Luby massacre. According to wikipedia the shooter targeted women. And here's a statistic for you: in the past 33 years, 70 of 71 mass murderers were men! Any ideas what that is about? On Friday, June 6, 2014 8:35 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/6/2014 6:27 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. So many questions, Share - you're actually making me think and sort this out in my head. Thanks. My position is that every home should be having a gun for the self-defense of the resident, their family, and their neighbors, unless the resident is certified insane, a felon, or a minor, in which case it is unlawful for them to own a firearm. Many citizens are already armed at home where it is legal to own a gun, which is in most states in the U.S. and Alaska. Around here in rural areas, almost everybody has a long gun in their home to be used for self-defense or for sport, or for hunting. In Texas, it is legal to carry a rifle or pistol in your vehicle if you coming or going to a gun show, a hunting trip, or a gun sporting event. Some conscientious citizens in towns and cities even have a carry permit and they may be armed with a concealed handgun. The debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns openly in plain sight. I have some reservations about this, but I will admit that the argument makes sense. Would anyone rob a bank if the patrons in line all had a gun in their pocket, on their hip, or a rifle over their shoulder? It's not complicated. In an ideal society there would be no murder. The worst case of mass murder in Texas occurred at a Luby's Cafeteria, where a guy came barging in an shot up the place killing over a dozen people. If someone in there had a concealed handgun, they could have shot the guy between the eyes the instant he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone. It took only a few minutes to mow down the defenseless diners like they were sitting ducks. What a tragedy! What we need to do is face the reality that people in this country have access to guns and that is probably not going to change any time soon. That is, unless we vote in an government that sets aside the Second Amendment and sends in federal troops to confiscate everyone's firearms, thus starting a civil war between the federal government and the states. It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. First, they take away your civil rights, then they come for the guns, then they come for the gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and transgenders; then they come for the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims; and then they come for the TMers. Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. That's what I think. Note: My uncle is a custom gunsmith in Abilene and owner of one of the oldest gun shops in Texas. I've spent countless hours with this guy talking about this issue - I may be biased. Go figure. On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:58 PM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably never going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/6/2014 8:26 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. There was no killer until the police arrived. Then the shooter killed three mounties and wounded two others. In this case, the police seemed to have stood around like ducks in a shooting gallery (actually, some were shot while still in their cars). Maybe Richard wants a return to the good old wild west where everyone carried a gun and differences were hardly discussed, you just whipped out your six shooter and blasted the guy who made you mad enough away. Yup, you got troubles there in the US of A where many think the only solution to gun violence is gun violence. Here in Canada multiple shootings are so rare you get these poor mounties hitting the dirt before they even knew what hit them. Total surprise attack. You are making some very good points, Ann! Another informant has pointed out that Canada has almost exactly the same percentage of gun ownership per population as the United States, but it does not have the same amount of gun violence. So, it's not the guns, but the people who own them. My point is that the second anyone aims a gun at anyone and shoots, some private citizen should shoot the shooter first and not wait around for the police to arrive. Or, in this case, shoot the shooter as he aims his weapon at a policeman. It's just common sense self-defense. Only the defenseless will stand around and watch some guy slaughter dozens of innocent people or students. People need to be prepared and be aware of what's going on around them and try to protect your neighbors and students. It's too late to argue about it after the fact. Would, shoulda, coulda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/6/2014 8:56 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. Take away that civil right and see if I care. It is a right not based on any concept of civility I know of. Guns are so lethal and so powerful that they have absolutely no place in the hands of human beings that are not actually engaged in some kind of lunatic war. This idea of wanting to maintain a civil right that can only bring bloodshed is sheer idiocy and ignorance. I know there are times if you are faced with a life-threatening situation where you wished you could meet that threat with fire power. Having your life or safety threatened is terrifying but does it justify blowing someone away? Humans who shoot other humans and feel justified in doing so should be treated like the social misfits they apparently are and lose other rights as a consequence. This goes for those who have done so in self defense. Confiscating every gun is virtually impossible but start by eliminating this outdated right first. Of course, I know this will never happen - you'd have to gun down or incarcerate half the population of America in order to wrestle their precious firearms out of their hands. America has a really, really big problem on their hands and it is only going to get much worse. As long as people believe blindly in this mistaken notion of their civil right to carry a lethal weapon you've got no solution. Welcome to armed America. First of all, it's not a crime for an individual to own guns in Canada and I would suspect most rural residents own more than one. It's their right to own a gun in Canada just like it is in the U.S., but with restrictions such as people must pass a criminal background check and register with the authorities. According to what I've read, 22% of Canadian households own at least one firearm. The real issue in the U.S. is a national gun registry. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will not solve the problem of gun violence. Take away the guns from the law abiding citizens and you are left with only the police and the criminals that have guns. There is a reason for the U.S. Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms - it is based on preexisting common law and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 - for self-defense. Without armed citizens there would be no armed militia for the Defense of the State. In the U.S., we have the right of self defense, the defense of others, and the right to defend a third party - and to use reasonable force in order to defend oneself or your family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/6/2014 8:57 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: As usual you are an idiot and your thinking, if it can be called such, is flawed. Anyone who wants to rob a bank is going to do so regardless of how many bank patrons are armed. The crook would simply try to insure he was better armed than any potential citizen hero. You are mistaken - almost anyone who is thinking about robbing a bank when they know that all the patrons are armed would at least /think twice/ before trying to rob a bank, unless they were insane, in which case even a bazooka wouldn't keep them from acting out. And, it's not just a hidden snub-nosed .38 that the patrons might be carrying. You never know what they might have hidden on their person. The first rule of armed fighting is to never show your weapon unless you plan on using it. Who is gonna try to whip out a snub nosed .38 on someone wearing body armor who has an Uzi pointed at you? Almost anyone who is armed would try take out a mass murderer, unless they were so afraid they lose all sense of self-preservation. That's what heroes do - they take chances.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
/Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. /On 6/6/2014 8:57 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Most people who buy handguns for the just in case scenarios never bother to train with them and have no idea how to aim and fire under stressful circumstances. Most people never bother to take any self-defense training of any kind, whether they purchase a gun or not. But, in order to have a carry permit in Texas, you have to taken and completed a training course. That's probably the case in S.C. as well. According to S.C. governor Nikki Haley, gun permits should be easier to obtain and the founding fathers gave us /the absolute right to keep and bear arms./
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
they were mainly afraid of slave revolts as I have said before here - you talk about the 2nd Amendment like it is a god which it isn't. From: 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. On 6/6/2014 8:57 AM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: Most people who buy handguns for the just in case scenarios never bother to train with them and have no idea how to aim and fire under stressful circumstances. Most people never bother to take any self-defense training of any kind, whether they purchase a gun or not. But, in order to have a carry permit in Texas, you have to taken and completed a training course. That's probably the case in S.C. as well. According to S.C. governor Nikki Haley, gun permits should be easier to obtain and the founding fathers gave us the absolute right to keep and bear arms.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
Richard, I'm still mulling all this over. Some of the worst mass murders have been in school settings. In that case, who should be carrying the guns? And if not carrying, where should the guns be stored? On Friday, June 6, 2014 11:32 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com wrote: On 6/6/2014 8:26 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. There was no killer until the police arrived. Then the shooter killed three mounties and wounded two others. In this case, the police seemed to have stood around like ducks in a shooting gallery (actually, some were shot while still in their cars). Maybe Richard wants a return to the good old wild west where everyone carried a gun and differences were hardly discussed, you just whipped out your six shooter and blasted the guy who made you mad enough away. Yup, you got troubles there in the US of A where many think the only solution to gun violence is gun violence. Here in Canada multiple shootings are so rare you get these poor mounties hitting the dirt before they even knew what hit them. Total surprise attack. You are making some very good points, Ann! Another informant has pointed out that Canada has almost exactly the same percentage of gun ownership per population as the United States, but it does not have the same amount of gun violence. So, it's not the guns, but the people who own them. My point is that the second anyone aims a gun at anyone and shoots, some private citizen should shoot the shooter first and not wait around for the police to arrive. Or, in this case, shoot the shooter as he aims his weapon at a policeman. It's just common sense self-defense. Only the defenseless will stand around and watch some guy slaughter dozens of innocent people or students. People need to be prepared and be aware of what's going on around them and try to protect your neighbors and students. It's too late to argue about it after the fact. Would, shoulda, coulda.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/6/2014 12:48 PM, Michael Jackson mjackso...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: they were mainly afraid of slave revolts as I have said before here - you talk about the 2nd Amendment like it is a god which it isn't. This historical footnote probably doesn't have any relevance to modern interpretations of the Second Amendment - slavery has been outlawed. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/6/2014 8:26 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... wrote : But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. There was no killer until the police arrived. Then the shooter killed three mounties and wounded two others. In this case, the police seemed to have stood around like ducks in a shooting gallery (actually, some were shot while still in their cars). Maybe Richard wants a return to the good old wild west where everyone carried a gun and differences were hardly discussed, you just whipped out your six shooter and blasted the guy who made you mad enough away. Yup, you got troubles there in the US of A where many think the only solution to gun violence is gun violence. Here in Canada multiple shootings are so rare you get these poor mounties hitting the dirt before they even knew what hit them. Total surprise attack. You are making some very good points, Ann! Another informant has pointed out that Canada has almost exactly the same percentage of gun ownership per population as the United States, but it does not have the same amount of gun violence. So, it's not the guns, but the people who own them. My point is that the second anyone aims a gun at anyone and shoots, some private citizen should shoot the shooter first and not wait around for the police to arrive. Or, in this case, shoot the shooter as he aims his weapon at a policeman. It's just common sense self-defense. Only the defenseless will stand around and watch some guy slaughter dozens of innocent people or students. People need to be prepared and be aware of what's going on around them and try to protect your neighbors and students. It's too late to argue about it after the fact. Would, shoulda, coulda. It takes guts to take on a violent person whether one possesses a gun or not. Imagine yourself holding a weapon and someone has already opened fire on a group of people which you are a part of. Do you run, drop to the floor as if shot dead, wet your pants or show the shooter you are about to try and put a bullet in them? In theory it sound easy to decide, in practice not so much. Once that assailant sees you have lifted your gun to place them in your sights you know you might be toast. Not many are so brave.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
hey Michael, you do know that most bank robberies net about $3,000.00 right? And most bank robbers seem pretty unsophisticated. This is not like the movies. Now, you may have a point that it is not likely for a patron who happened to be armed to intervene unless he himself were threatened. He would become liable himself should something go awry. I happened to take a class last Sunday for my conceal and carry permit. Unfortunately the teacher was not very professional and embodied some of the negative stereotypes one associates with the NRA. In order for me to get my permit, I have to undergo FBI, and MO Highway Patrol background checks.. I had to go through a thorough fingerprint scan, which was also sent to the FBI. If I clear, I will get my permit in a month or so. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : As usual you are an idiot and your thinking, if it can be called such, is flawed. Anyone who wants to rob a bank is going to do so regardless of how many bank patrons are armed. The crook would simply try to insure he was better armed than any potential citizen hero. Who is gonna try to whip out a snub nosed .38 on someone wearing body armor who has an Uzi pointed at you? Most people who buy handguns for the just in case scenarios never bother to train with them and have no idea how to aim and fire under stressful circumstances. The end result of having every citizen armed is when trouble starts the casualty list would be MUCH higher from friendly fire coming from panicky citizens shooting wild. Remember, guns and the ammo they fire didn't come out of a Buddhist stupa, so you don't know what your hind end from a hole in the ground when it comes to good sense with guns. From: 'Richard J. Williams' punditster@... [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada On 6/6/2014 6:27 AM, Share Long sharelong60@... mailto:sharelong60@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: But Richard isn't the shooter a citizen? And aren't the citizens then also becoming shooters? What is the distinction that you're making? Wouldn't it be better for the citizens to call the police to deal with the shooter? It seems like the other path leads to total anarchy. So many questions, Share - you're actually making me think and sort this out in my head. Thanks. My position is that every home should be having a gun for the self-defense of the resident, their family, and their neighbors, unless the resident is certified insane, a felon, or a minor, in which case it is unlawful for them to own a firearm. Many citizens are already armed at home where it is legal to own a gun, which is in most states in the U.S. and Alaska. Around here in rural areas, almost everybody has a long gun in their home to be used for self-defense or for sport, or for hunting. In Texas, it is legal to carry a rifle or pistol in your vehicle if you coming or going to a gun show, a hunting trip, or a gun sporting event. Some conscientious citizens in towns and cities even have a carry permit and they may be armed with a concealed handgun. The debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns openly in plain sight. I have some reservations about this, but I will admit that the argument makes sense. Would anyone rob a bank if the patrons in line all had a gun in their pocket, on their hip, or a rifle over their shoulder? It's not complicated. In an ideal society there would be no murder. The worst case of mass murder in Texas occurred at a Luby's Cafeteria, where a guy came barging in an shot up the place killing over a dozen people. If someone in there had a concealed handgun, they could have shot the guy between the eyes the instant he raised his weapon and pointed it at someone. It took only a few minutes to mow down the defenseless diners like they were sitting ducks. What a tragedy! What we need to do is face the reality that people in this country have access to guns and that is probably not going to change any time soon. That is, unless we vote in an government that sets aside the Second Amendment and sends in federal troops to confiscate everyone's firearms, thus starting a civil war between the federal government and the states. It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. First, they take away your civil rights, then they come for the guns, then they come for the gays, lesbians, cross-dressers, and transgenders; then they come for the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims; and then they come for the TMers. Everyone should take self-defense weapon training of some kind, even if it's just pepper-spray. That's what I think. Note: My uncle is a custom gunsmith
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/6/2014 8:56 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It would be really scary if an authoritarian government would take away everyone's civil rights and then impose their will on the people by force of arms. Take away that civil right and see if I care. It is a right not based on any concept of civility I know of. Guns are so lethal and so powerful that they have absolutely no place in the hands of human beings that are not actually engaged in some kind of lunatic war. This idea of wanting to maintain a civil right that can only bring bloodshed is sheer idiocy and ignorance. I know there are times if you are faced with a life-threatening situation where you wished you could meet that threat with fire power. Having your life or safety threatened is terrifying but does it justify blowing someone away? Humans who shoot other humans and feel justified in doing so should be treated like the social misfits they apparently are and lose other rights as a consequence. This goes for those who have done so in self defense. Confiscating every gun is virtually impossible but start by eliminating this outdated right first. Of course, I know this will never happen - you'd have to gun down or incarcerate half the population of America in order to wrestle their precious firearms out of their hands. America has a really, really big problem on their hands and it is only going to get much worse. As long as people believe blindly in this mistaken notion of their civil right to carry a lethal weapon you've got no solution. Welcome to armed America. First of all, it's not a crime for an individual to own guns in Canada and I would suspect most rural residents own more than one. It's their right to own a gun in Canada just like it is in the U.S., but with restrictions such as people must pass a criminal background check and register with the authorities. According to what I've read, 22% of Canadian households own at least one firearm. The real issue in the U.S. is a national gun registry. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will not solve the problem of gun violence. Take away the guns from the law abiding citizens and you are left with only the police and the criminals that have guns. There is a reason for the U.S. Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms - it is based on preexisting common law and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 - for self-defense. Without armed citizens there would be no armed militia for the Defense of the State. In the U.S., we have the right of self defense, the defense of others, and the right to defend a third party - and to use reasonable force in order to defend oneself or your family. I can only ask this: when was the last time America took advantage of the opportunity to arm and establish a militia? And if we're talking about 1689 then I would suggest we need to update. However, the Catch 22 is the fact that the more we/you embrace this Second Amendment and feel the need to own and carry guns as well as defend that need then the more guns there will be, not only in the hands of the aggressors but also in the hands of those who fear that aggression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/6/2014 8:57 AM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: As usual you are an idiot and your thinking, if it can be called such, is flawed. Anyone who wants to rob a bank is going to do so regardless of how many bank patrons are armed. The crook would simply try to insure he was better armed than any potential citizen hero. You are mistaken - almost anyone who is thinking about robbing a bank when they know that all the patrons are armed would at least think twice before trying to rob a bank, unless they were insane, in which case even a bazooka wouldn't keep them from acting out. And, it's not just a hidden snub-nosed .38 that the patrons might be carrying. You never know what they might have hidden on their person. The first rule of armed fighting is to never show your weapon unless you plan on using it. Who is gonna try to whip out a snub nosed .38 on someone wearing body armor who has an Uzi pointed at you? Almost anyone who is armed would try take out a mass murderer, unless they were so afraid they lose all sense of self-preservation. That's what heroes do - they take chances. Yeah, and how many heroes do you know?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 06/05/2014 06:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. Fine if you disarm the authorities too. Right now US cops looks like they're ready for Iraqi insurgents to come out from behind the bushes. http://www.bbc.com/news/27709330 image http://www.bbc.com/news/27709330 Manhunt as police shot in Canada http://www.bbc.com/news/27709330 A manhunt is under way in the Canadian city of Moncton, New Brunswick, after a gunman kills three police officers and wounds two more. View on www.bbc.com http://www.bbc.com/news/27709330 Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably /never/ going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably never going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated. You dummy, how can there be a gunfight if there are NO GUNS?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Guns in Canada
On 6/5/2014 8:27 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: On 6/5/2014 8:27 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... wrote : It appears that Canada is not immune to gun violence either. Nowhere is immune because people are violent. Another example of why guns have no place in society. We are probably /never/ going to have an ideal society where there are no guns. The reality is the last place you want to be, is in a gunfight without a gun. If citizens were armed they could kill the shooter with a single shot to the head. It's not complicated. You dummy, how can there be a gunfight if there are NO GUNS? Let me rephrase that statement: The last place you want to be is in a gunfight when you don't have a gun.
