 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007A warning to road ragers
From the Indy Star. February 21, 2007 Driver wounded in confrontation Metropolitan police are investigating a shooting on the Northside that left a 43-year-old man in critical condition today after a confrontation between motorists. Curtis McGruder was taken to Wishard Memorial Hospital after officers found him shot in the chest near 30th Street and Kessler Boulevard North Drive about 9:40 a.m., Lt. Doug Scheffel said in a written statement. A witness told police McGruder got out of his car and pounded on the hood then spit at the driver of a silver Cadillac or Mercedes. The other driver pulled a gun and shot McGregor one time, then drove south on Kessler Boulevard North Drive. Police are urging anyone with information about the incident to call Detective Michael Mitchell at 317-327-3475 or CrimeStoppers at 317-262-TIPS > From the Indy Star. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Detective Michael Mitchell at 317-327-3475 or CrimeStoppers at > 317-262-TIPS Had a guy in a road rage incident last Sunday on I-4 returning to Orlando from the Daytona 500 who "cut off" a group of thugz in a SUV(who were illegally passing vehicles using the emengency lane!),who chased him down,he jumped out and began to fight with them(THREE of them!!),and one went back to the car and got a gun and killed him. (near the Lake Mary exits.) Another Darwin candidate. Police quickly caught the people in the SUV,arrested them for murder. Sheesh;3 vs one,and they hadda get a GUN?  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in <snip, stories> So, your collective point is what exactly? "just let them do it" ? >> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in > <snip, stories> > > So, your collective point is what exactly? "just let them do it" ? Point is don't go pounding and spitting on a Cadillac in a bad area of town because you may get shot. >>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >> <snip, stories> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Point is don't go pounding and spitting on a Cadillac in a bad area of > town because you may get shot. The first post lacks detail. The second post clearly shows the driver with a gun was forcing his way through traffic. >>>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >>> <snip, stories> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The first post lacks detail. The second post clearly shows the driver > with a gun was forcing his way through traffic. Walking up to a car to attack the driver is dumb. You're completely exposed and vulnerable. So Brent, would you pound and spit on a pimped Caddy in South Chicago? >>>>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> <snip, stories> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > exposed and vulnerable. So Brent, would you pound and spit on a pimped > Caddy in South Chicago? You must be new here. The answer is, "Yes, Brent is stupid enough to do that." Steve >>>>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> <snip, stories> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> The first post lacks detail. The second post clearly shows the driver >> with a gun was forcing his way through traffic. > Walking up to a car to attack the driver is dumb. You're completely > exposed and vulnerable. such a specific action, but the theme given your title seemed much wider. > So Brent, would you pound and spit on a pimped > Caddy in South Chicago? I've leaned over the hood of a japanese sedan driven by an asian guy who was behind me in a queue and threatening to run me down so he could be one space further up in a wealthy suburb when I was bicycling. Does that count? :) george <georgie@gmail.com> wrote in news:gN- dneNDEMeig0DYnZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@insightbb.com: >>> 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >> <snip, stories> >> >> So, your collective point is what exactly? "just let them do it" ? to Brent;No,dumbass;don't get out of the car and fight. You don't have any idea of what you may be up against. In this case,it was 3 on ONE,and one of the 3 also got a gun. > Point is don't go pounding and spitting on a Cadillac in a bad area of > town because you may get shot. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Sheesh;3 vs one,and they hadda get a GUN? What do you expect, it's the USA. Graham >>223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Graham What if it was the other guy that had a gun? Will you ever quit with your "guns are bad, m'kay?" crap? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in > >>> From the Indy Star. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > What if it was the other guy that had a gun? Will you ever quit with > your "guns are bad, m'kay?" crap? Absolutely not. Guns *are* bad. Graham > Absolutely not. > > Guns *are* bad. I own two, and they're pretty nice. Good looking, too. > > Absolutely not. > > > > Guns *are* bad. > > I own two, and they're pretty nice. Good looking, too. You're probably a sensible and responsible owner though ! Graham >>>Absolutely not. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're probably a sensible and responsible owner though ! Is this an admission that you realize it is not the gun itself that commits crime (or doesn't commit crime), but rather the person in possession of the gun? > Graham > >>>Absolutely not. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > commits crime (or doesn't commit crime), but rather the person in > possession of the gun? That much is of course obvious. Are you going to suggest a psychological test before someone's allowed to buy a gun ? What about them selling it or having it stolen ? The only way to stop criminals and loonies getting guns is to restrict their availability. In the UK the ban is *only* on hand guns btw. Graham >>>>>Absolutely not. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That much is of course obvious. Well, you just got done saying "guns *are* bad". If you realize my statement is "obvious", why did you make your ridiculous claim in the first place? > Are you going to suggest a psychological test > before someone's allowed to buy a gun ? No, but I wouldn't be surprised if you did. > What about them selling it or having it > stolen ? Are you suggesting someone undergo a psychological test before becoming a victim of theft? > The only way to stop criminals and loonies getting guns is to restrict their > availability. I agree. Lock them up, and in some cases execute them. > In the UK the ban is *only* on hand guns btw. So if I lived in London, I could go down to my local Tesco (or another retailer) and purchase a shotgun? > Graham > >>>>>Absolutely not. > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > statement is "obvious", why did you make your ridiculous claim in the > first place? Because it gives the opportunity to kill. There is no need or justification for the ownership of lethal weapons. Graham >> >>>>>Absolutely not. >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Graham Baloney. Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb woman if he doesn't have a gun? Should the woman have an opportunity to kill if he tries to kill her? Dave Head >>> >>>>>Absolutely not. >>> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dave Head Or "just" rape her? What about the elderly or handicapped? A person in a wheelchair cannot run away.(nor should they have to) Why should criminals be safer than ODCs? Graham is not rational. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Graham is not rational. Is it rational to think all 6'6" men want to rape smaller women ? Graham >>>>>Well, you just got done saying "guns *are* bad". If you realize my >>>>>statement is "obvious", why did you make your ridiculous claim in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Graham It's just as rational as assuming that someone who wants to own a gun does so for the purpose of committing a crime. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Graham Damn, you are thick. It doesn't take all, it only takes one. DPH > > Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb woman > > if he doesn't have a gun? > > Or "just" rape her? FYI I've never once heard of a rape case where the woman said "I wish I'd had a gun". You lot obsess about rape when you realise you're losing the argument about gun ownership. Why is that ? Graham >>>Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb woman >>>if he doesn't have a gun? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > FYI I've never once heard of a rape case where the woman said "I wish I'd had a > gun". That's because most English women are so ugly, they're thrilled at the opportunity to be f.cked - properly f.cked at that. > You lot obsess about rape when you realise you're losing the argument about gun > ownership. Why is that ? > > Graham > >>>Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb woman > >>>if he doesn't have a gun? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's because most English women are so ugly, they're thrilled at the > opportunity to be f.cked - properly f.cked at that. What an idiot you are. Graham >> > Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb woman >> > if he doesn't have a gun? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >FYI I've never once heard of a rape case where the woman said "I wish I'd had a >gun". In central Florida, there was an epidemic of rapes. The local sheriff encouraged women to buy guns, and gave them shooting instruction, very publicly, with the whole thing covered intensely by the news media. The incidents of rape went _way_ down. >You lot obsess about rape when you realise you're losing the argument about gun >ownership. Why is that ? We _aren't_ losing the argument about gun ownership. Actually, we've won it, over here anyway, and the politicians, for the most part, don't even whisper about any more restrictions on guns. DPH >Graham > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:06:42 +0000, Eeyore > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > over here anyway, and the politicians, for the most part, don't even whisper > about any more restrictions on guns. Maybe where you live... it's still a battle to keep those who have no sense of history in line. nate > Maybe where you live... it's still a battle to keep those who have no > sense of history in line. Those in office or at least those who pay them have a sense of history. They are in power and aim to keep it. Here in c(r)ook county IL there is a maze of firearms laws that make gun ownership a mine field. However, those elected to political office give themselves exemptions to those laws. For instance, in chicago where handguns are illegal for regular citizens, alderman not only can legally own the guns but carry them conceled on their person. >>> > Does a 245 lb, 6' 6" man lack the opportunity to kill a 120 lb >>> > woman if he doesn't have a gun? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>FYI I've never once heard of a rape case where the woman said "I wish >>I'd had a gun". Oh,as if Graham is the authority since he "has not heard of it"...all that shows is that he's uninformed,out of touch with reality.He wears blinders. > In central Florida, there was an epidemic of rapes. The local sheriff > encouraged women to buy guns, and gave them shooting instruction, very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>You lot obsess about rape when you realise you're losing the argument >>about gun ownership. Why is that ? GRAHAM is the one losing,but he's so far distant from reality,he can't recognize it. > We _aren't_ losing the argument about gun ownership. Actually, we've > won it, over here anyway, and the politicians, for the most part, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>Graham SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh,as if Graham is the authority since he "has not heard of it"...all that > shows is that he's uninformed,out of touch with reality.He wears blinders. Feel free to ask anyone who lives here. Graham >We _aren't_ losing the argument about gun ownership. Actually, we've won it, >over here anyway, and the politicians, for the most part, don't even whisper >about any more restrictions on guns. The Democrats just re-introduced the Assault Weapons Ban (a.k.a the Ban on Ugly Guns). I guess they preferred the Republicans in control of Congress. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>We _aren't_ losing the argument about gun ownership. Actually, we've won it, >>over here anyway, and the politicians, for the most part, don't even whisper >>about any more restrictions on guns. > >The Democrats just re-introduced the Assault Weapons Ban (a.k.a the Ban on Ugly >Guns). Bastards. >I guess they preferred the Republicans in control of Congress. Yep. DPH >>There is no need or justification for >>the ownership of lethal weapons. I believe that statement is from a member of one of two groups: either a liberal or prey. > >>There is no need or justification for the ownership of lethal weapons. > > I believe that statement is from a member of one of two groups: > > either a liberal or prey. In the UK it would be the view of the vast majority. Graham >>>>>>>Absolutely not. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Because it gives the opportunity to kill. I have the opportunity to kill everytime I get behind the wheel of my car. Guess what? I've never killed anyone, either with my car or with my guns, nor have I tried to. > There is no need or justification for > the ownership of lethal weapons. Nor is there any "need" or "justification" for you to breathe. > Graham > I have the opportunity to kill everytime I get behind the wheel of my car. > Guess what? I've never killed anyone, either with my car or with my guns, > nor have I tried to. Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than you have with your gun. Steve >>>>>>>Absolutely not. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Graham Well let's ban cars, since they are just as lethal as guns in the wrong hands. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in news:rc- dndchr_22KkDYnZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@insightbb.com: >> Absolutely not. >> >> Guns *are* bad. Then why do POLICE have them? Why do governments have them? > I own two, and they're pretty nice. Good looking, too. Graham can't recognize that firearms are INANIMATE objects,and thus neither bad or good. He's not rational. It's the PERSON who uses them for bad or good. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Graham can't recognize that firearms are INANIMATE objects,and thus neither > bad or good. He's not rational. > > It's the PERSON who uses them for bad or good. People who wish to ban firearms I have found see the world like a grade school classroom. Where everyone is to be punished for the bad acts of a few. That somehow, the bad people will be stopped by their new rules. > > Graham can't recognize that firearms are INANIMATE objects,and thus neither > > bad or good. He's not rational. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > school classroom. Where everyone is to be punished for the bad acts of a > few. That would infer that not owning a firearm is a punishment. It's not. The only ppl I've ever met with an interterest in owning a gun were ones who weren't quite right / stable in the head. There is no sensible reason to own something designed explicitly to kill. Graham >>> Graham can't recognize that firearms are INANIMATE objects,and thus neither >>> bad or good. He's not rational. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > right / stable in the head. There is no sensible reason to own something designed > explicitly to kill. You're just brainwashed. Holding and firing a gun is a very exciting experience. Target practice (rifle and handgun) is very challenging and fun, and I feel sorry for you for never having experiencing that. > >>> Graham can't recognize that firearms are INANIMATE objects,and thus >>> neither > bad or good. He's not rational. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're just brainwashed. No. But you are. > Holding and firing a gun is a very exciting > experience. Target practice (rifle and handgun) is very challenging and > fun, and I feel sorry for you for never having experiencing that. I have done. You can do that at a shooting range with a rented gun that's safely secured when not in use. There is no reason to have to own your own or to carry lethal weapons around. I have nothing against rifles and the like for hunting etc either btw. In fact I handled a hunting rifle when I was in Norway. Graham > No. But you are. How could I be, I'm from an European country run by a nanny government just like you. But I didnt allow them mold my thinking. > You can do that at a shooting range with a rented gun that's safely secured when not in > use. Well I want to do that with my own guns, and to shoot as much as I want when I want. My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. > There is no reason to have to own your own or to carry lethal weapons around. See, here in the US you dont have to give a reason to some a.shole bureaucrat for every thing you may want to do. Your mindset is the mindset of a child. > > No. But you are. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well I want to do that with my own guns, and to shoot as much as I want > when I want. Me, me, me, me, me ! What exactly is *the point* of shooting do tell me ? > My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in > the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. That is *not* safely secured ! > > There is no reason to have to own your own or to carry lethal weapons around. > > See, here in the US you dont have to give a reason to some a.shole > bureaucrat for every thing you may want to do. Your mindset is the > mindset of a child. No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane person want to carry a lethal weapon ? Graham > Me, me, me, me, me ! What exactly is *the point* of shooting do tell me ? Yes it is all about me. Why the hell not? Shooting is fun for ME. >> My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in >> the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. > > That is *not* safely secured ! Thats where it stays when I drive > No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane person want to carry a > lethal weapon ? Because they just want to? Or maybe they're driving to the range, or for self-defense? What do you care? > > Me, me, me, me, me ! What exactly is *the point* of shooting do tell me ? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thats where it stays when I drive How exactly is that safe ? Say you get T-boned and at least knocked unconscious ? Graham > > No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > person want to carry a > lethal weapon ? > > Because they just want to? Or maybe they're driving to the range, or for > self-defense? What do you care? You can keep a gun far more safely at the range in a secure purpose built safe. Graham >> Me, me, me, me, me ! What exactly is *the point* of shooting do tell >> me ? What's the point of throwing a basketball through a hoop? Or hitting a small while dimpled ball downrange to try to get it to roll into a hole in the ground? Or archery? > Yes it is all about me. Why the hell not? Shooting is fun for ME. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! According to you,Graham,but you're irrational. Your beliefs do not match reality. >>Why would any normal sane >> person want to carry a lethal weapon ? Because there ARE bad guys out there who carry weapons,or attack in groups,who INTEND to do people harm. But Graham is too irrational to absorb that. > Because they just want to? Or maybe they're driving to the range, or > for self-defense? What do you care? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Eeyore wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > into a hole in the ground? > Or archery? It's a heck of a lot more challenging than pulling a trigger ! > > Yes it is all about me. Why the hell not? Shooting is fun for ME. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > According to you,Graham,but you're irrational. > Your beliefs do not match reality. I'm entirely representative of what the British think on the matter. > >>Why would any normal sane > >> person want to carry a lethal weapon ? > > Because there ARE bad guys out there who carry weapons,or attack in > groups,who INTEND to do people harm. > But Graham is too irrational to absorb that. In the UK it's a minute number and mostly associated with drug criminals who mostly tend to shoot each other. No complaint about that. I don't ever expect to see a gun used outside of a range or hunting in my entire life. Graham > I'm entirely representative of what the British think on the matter. And what the British think is of huge importance, of course. 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in news:PL- dnXnSZYIMz0PYnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@insightbb.com: >> I'm entirely representative of what the British think on the matter. > > And what the British think is of huge importance, of course. What the British "think" and what reality is are two different things. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Eeyore wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What the British "think" and what reality is are two different things. Where are the WMDs ? At least the British public were better informed over that little fiasco. Did *you* believe they existed ? Graham >>>>I'm entirely representative of what the British think on the matter. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > At least the British public were better informed over that little fiasco. Did > *you* believe they existed ? I didn't, but if as you imply, most Brits were in tune with reality, why wasn't Blair out of office 4 years ago? > Graham > >>>Eeyore wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I didn't, but if as you imply, most Brits were in tune with reality, why > wasn't Blair out of office 4 years ago? Because he wasn't up for re-election then. Graham Graham >>Because there ARE bad guys out there who carry weapons,or attack in >>groups,who INTEND to do people harm. >>But Graham is too irrational to absorb that. > > In the UK it's a minute number and mostly associated with drug criminals who > mostly tend to shoot each other. No complaint about that. Right - all the stoners want to kill each other, innit? > I don't ever expect to see a gun used outside of a range or hunting in my entire > life. Actually, I don't either despite the fact that I live in the wild, wild west of the USA. You've been watching too much American TV. What would you say if I told you I thought all British police were like the characters portrayed in "The Thin Blue Line"? (Note, I am not telling you I think this - I'm asking a hypothetical question). > Graham > >>Because there ARE bad guys out there who carry weapons,or attack in > >>groups,who INTEND to do people harm. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Right - all the stoners want to kill each other, innit? This has nothing to do with cannabis and everything to do with crack. Graham >>>No. But you are. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Graham To protect oneself from criminals. To hunt tasty animals. Because recreational shooting is fun. As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. there's four reasons. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in > >>the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >>bureaucrat for every thing you may want to do. Your mindset is the > >>mindset of a child. Whereas your mindset is that of an arrogant redneck. > > No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > person want to carry a > lethal weapon ? > > To protect oneself from criminals. Circular argument. If no criminals had guns, no other person would either. We're keener on this scenario than open gun warfare as practiced in the USA. > To hunt tasty animals. With licenced rifles (or shotguns) kept in safe places when not in use. Not a problem at all. All in favour of it. > Because recreational shooting is fun. Fine. Keep your guns at the range in a safe place where they can't be stolen. > As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. That's barking mad. If things ever get that bad, there's been a far worse horrible breakdown in democracy previously. > there's four reasons. That's four excuses. Graham >>>>My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in >>>>the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Whereas your mindset is that of an arrogant redneck. Ad hominem duly noted. >>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > person want to carry a >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If no criminals had guns, no other person would either. We're keener on this scenario than open > gun warfare as practiced in the USA. But criminals DO have guns, and taking the guns away from criminals is a hell of a lot harder than taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Here's an idea - why don't we make it illegal for convicted felons to have weapons (not that we really expect them to just hand them over, but so that the police are able to confiscate them when they do find them,) but let the law abiding citizens keep their guns just on the off chance they need to protect themselves from a criminal who doesn't play by the rules? There's an idea that might work. Oh, and by the way, contrary to your misconceptions, I can't remember the last time I saw a gun in public that wasn't strapped to the hip of a police officer. We don't go around plinking at each other for fun, despite what you may have seen on TV. We just understand that we can't always rely on someone with a badge to be there when we need him. >>To hunt tasty animals. > > With licenced rifles (or shotguns) kept in safe places when not in use. Not a problem at all. All > in favour of it. Which is what most sportsmen do. >>Because recreational shooting is fun. > > Fine. Keep your guns at the range in a safe place where they can't be stolen. Why should I have to keep my guns outside my property? Makes no sense. >>As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. > > That's barking mad. If things ever get that bad, there's been a far worse horrible breakdown in > democracy previously. Hell, GB is almost there. I'm surprised that there aren't large-scale citizen revolts against the revocation of your rights. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > >>>person want to carry a > lethal weapon ? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have weapons (not that we really expect them to just hand them over, but > so that the police are able to confiscate them when they do find them,) Sounds fine to me. Why don't you guys do that ? > but let the law abiding citizens keep their guns just on the off chance > they need to protect themselves from a criminal who doesn't play by the > rules? There's an idea that might work. No law abiding citizens I know here have any guns nor want them ! In other words - that's irrelevant. > Oh, and by the way, contrary to your misconceptions, I can't remember > the last time I saw a gun in public that wasn't strapped to the hip of a > police officer. We don't go around plinking at each other for fun, > despite what you may have seen on TV. We just understand that we can't > always rely on someone with a badge to be there when we need him. One of the posters here last time we discussed this said he carries. > >>To hunt tasty animals. > > > > With licenced rifles (or shotguns) kept in safe places when not in use. Not a > problem at all. All > in favour of it. > > Which is what most sportsmen do. Fine. There's no law against that. Those here who own rifles etc for hunting are however required to keep them in a gun safe that's desiged to be burglar proof when not in use. Basically it's all about keeping guns from criminals you see. > >>Because recreational shooting is fun. > > > > Fine. Keep your guns at the range in a safe place where they can't be stolen. > > Why should I have to keep my guns outside my property? Makes no sense. Because it'll be kept securely and can't be stolen in transit. > >>As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. > > > > That's barking mad. If things ever get that bad, there's been a far worse horrible > breakdown in > democracy previously. > > Hell, GB is almost there. No it's not. > I'm surprised that there aren't large-scale citizen revolts against the revocation of your rights. They haven't been revoked unlike yours (habeas corpus). I can assure you that if half the idiot Blair's recent daft ideas came to fruition there *would* be significant public disobedience. I'm totally confident of it. After all we got rid of the 'Poll Tax' without using guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riot We don't need guns now. Graham >>>>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > >>>person want to carry a >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sounds fine to me. Why don't you guys do that ? That's called SARCASM. That's pretty much how our laws are written. >>but let the law abiding citizens keep their guns just on the off chance >>they need to protect themselves from a criminal who doesn't play by the >>rules? There's an idea that might work. > > No law abiding citizens I know here have any guns nor want them ! In other words - that's irrelevant. Are you calling me a criminal, then? >>Oh, and by the way, contrary to your misconceptions, I can't remember >>the last time I saw a gun in public that wasn't strapped to the hip of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One of the posters here last time we discussed this said he carries. He probably has a concealed carry permit, then. The point was, you don't see guns. They don't get drawn often at all. Some people just feel better knowing that they have them, and who the hell are you to tell them that they can't? >>>>To hunt tasty animals. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Basically it's all about keeping guns from criminals you see. And everyone else, apparently. >>>>Because recreational shooting is fun. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because it'll be kept securely and can't be stolen in transit. That's right, YOU, some limey with a bad attitude, know better than I do how to take care of MY property. Obviously because I can't be trusted to drive 20 miles with a gun in my car without being carjacked and my skeet gun ending up in the hands of the Russian Mafia. Geez, just TAKE the damn straws and quit grasping already. >>>>As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No it's not. Yes, it is. It's officially on my list of "places that I don't want to live, thanks to oppressive, nanny-state government." Orwell was apparently right, only a couple years off. Which is a shame because on the face of it I've heard that England is a rather pleasant place. >>I'm surprised that there aren't large-scale citizen revolts against the revocation of your rights. > > They haven't been revoked unlike yours (habeas corpus). Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with half the stuff that our own government is doing, we just aren't nearly as far along the slippery slope. (GWB is trying hard to catch up, however, what with his warrantless wiretapping program and support of the Patriot Act.) > I can assure you that if half the idiot Blair's > recent daft ideas came to fruition there *would* be significant public disobedience. I'm totally > confident of it. After all we got rid of the 'Poll Tax' without using guns. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_riot OK, now when are you going to get rid of all the surveillance cameras? Or do you LIKE the gov't watching you take a sh.t? > We don't need guns now. Maybe you don't need them now, but when you do you will wonder why you let the government take them away. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>But criminals DO have guns, and taking the guns away from criminals is a >>hell of a lot harder than taking them away from law-abiding citizens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sounds fine to me. Why don't you guys do that ? We have. See how well that is working? >>but let the law abiding citizens keep their guns just on the off chance >>they need to protect themselves from a criminal who doesn't play by the >>rules? There's an idea that might work. > > No law abiding citizens I know here have any guns nor want them ! So? Do any of them want to drive a Pinto? Perhaps you should outlaw Pintos then. > In other words - that's irrelevant. Yes, your argument is irrelevant. Why do you bring it up? >>Oh, and by the way, contrary to your misconceptions, I can't remember >>the last time I saw a gun in public that wasn't strapped to the hip of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One of the posters here last time we discussed this said he carries. Some states have open carry laws. Some limit people to concealed carry with permit. Even in the most permissive open carry states, it is not common to see people carrying guns. >>>>To hunt tasty animals. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fine. There's no law against that. Those here who own rifles etc for hunting are however required to > keep them in a gun safe that's desiged to be burglar proof when not in use. "burglar proof"? LOL. > Basically it's all about keeping guns from criminals you see. That's working so well isn't it? Even in your country. >>>>Because recreational shooting is fun. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because it'll be kept securely and can't be stolen in transit. Is car-jacking all that common in your country? Despite what you may have read about the US, it really isn't that common here. >>>>As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No it's not. matter of opinion, of course. All the smart people emigrated from your country years ago. >>I'm surprised that there aren't large-scale citizen revolts against the revocation of your rights. > > They haven't been revoked unlike yours (habeas corpus). You obviously only read headlines. > I can assure you that if half the idiot Blair's > recent daft ideas came to fruition there *would* be significant public disobedience. I'm totally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Graham >>>>>My guns are safely secured when not in use (the nice 9mm in >>>>>the glovebox), I don't need a nanny to secure them for me. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > nate Graham ignores the fact that UK has lots of guns;UK's Home Office said in 2000 that there were over 3 million illegal guns in the UK.The IRA still has caches of guns,the Yardies have AK-47s;machine guns. Graham's beliefs do not match reality.Thus he's not rational. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Whereas your mindset is that of an arrogant redneck. Do you even know what a redneck is? >>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane > person want to carry a >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Circular argument. Not at all. > If no criminals had guns, no other person would either. There's your circular argument. > We're keener on this scenario than open > gun warfare as practiced in the USA. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With licenced rifles (or shotguns) kept in safe places when not in use. Not a problem at all. All > in favour of it. It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. >>Because recreational shooting is fun. > > Fine. Keep your guns at the range in a safe place where they can't be stolen. After all, nobody could ever break into a gun range, just like nobody could ever break into (or rob) a bank. >>As a last-resort defense against an oppressive government. > > That's barking mad. I'm sure you still harbor (or should I say harbour?) resentment over our war for independence. > If things ever get that bad, there's been a far worse horrible breakdown in > democracy previously. And you think it can't happen? >>there's four reasons. > > That's four excuses. > > Graham > It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. Strange idea you have of 'fun'. > >>Because recreational shooting is fun. > > > > Fine. Keep your guns at the range in a safe place where they can't be stolen. > > After all, nobody could ever break into a gun range, just like nobody > could ever break into (or rob) a bank. It'll be better secured than most homes. Graham >>It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It'll be better secured than most homes. Well, sure, because all the people with guns will be there to protect it. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > nate There's a gun store/range in my city,not more than a 1/4 mile from the local police station,on a heavily travelled main street,and it's been burgled twice,even after having alarms installed,bars on windows and doors. Also,several Orlando police cars have been burgled recently and their guns taken,which were secured in locked gun racks in the trunk. One theft was a full-auto .308cal assault rifle(machine gun!),a silenced machine pistol,and a .45 cal pistol.Other thefts were AR-15 semi-auto assault rifles. Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of the officers shift. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in > > There's a gun store/range in my city,not more than a 1/4 mile from the > local police station,on a heavily travelled main street,and it's been > burgled twice,even after having alarms installed,bars on windows and doors. Come on. How hard did they actually try to make it tricky to break in ? > Also,several Orlando police cars have been burgled recently and their guns > taken,which were secured in locked gun racks in the trunk. One theft was a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of > the officers shift. Which makes perfect sense. Graham >> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of >> the officers shift. > > Which makes perfect sense. Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. I'm confused...you said you can trust cops to safely handle guns? >>> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of >>> the officers shift. >> >> Which makes perfect sense. Huh? That makes NO sense. I'm glad Salt Lake City allows their off duty officers to carry. Otherwise, probably more than five people would have been killed at that mall. I would not live anywhere that disarmed police officers when off duty. There have been untold instances of off duty cops saving lives by carrying weapons. Steve > >>> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of > >>> the officers shift. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There have been untold instances of off duty cops saving lives by carrying > weapons. In the UK our police aren't armed. Graham > >> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of > >> the officers shift. > > > > Which makes perfect sense. > > Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. Only if they carry their guns with them off-duty. > I'm confused...you said you can trust cops to safely handle guns? I said *our* armed police are specially trained. Your lot aren't. Graham >> Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. > > Only if they carry their guns with them off-duty. Duh. That was my point. > I said *our* armed police are specially trained. Your lot aren't. LOL! "Specially trained!" Yeah, I can imagine the depth of their expertise and their long experience. Most cops around here grew up with guns, their fathers took them to the range or hunting since they were able to walk. I often see kids at my range, and they're all excellent shots. > >> Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > LOL! "Specially trained!" Yeah, I can imagine the depth of their > expertise and their long experience. That because you're a bigot. > Most cops around here grew up with guns, their fathers took them to the range > or hunting since they were able to walk. I often see kids at my range, and > they're all excellent shots. http://met.police.uk/co19/training.htm Graham >>>> Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. >>> Only if they carry their guns with them off-duty. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That because you're a bigot. No, because of the fear of guns so prevalent in your society. Your cops grow up fearing guns, and stay that way. A few weeks of training cannot bring you to skill level of someone who has been shooting guns for fun since childhood. Last time I was at the range, there was a kid shooting a semi-automatic AK47, and although the rifle was half his size, he was shooting very nice groups. > >>>> Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. > >>> Only if they carry their guns with them off-duty. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, because of the fear of guns so prevalent in your society. It's hardly an obsessive fear. It's a wholly rational distaste for them. > Your cops grow up fearing guns, and stay that way. No they don't. No-one here *fears* guns because they're an non-issue. You simply don't come across them in normal life. I've never walked outt he door thinking "oh dear will I get shot today" becasue it's almost unheard of. The USA has something like *40 times* more gun deaths per head of population than we do. > A few weeks of training cannot bring you to skill level of someone who has > been shooting guns for fun since childhood. Absolute rubbish. Either you can shoot or you can't. I did OK btw. The police training actually concentrates more on keeping a cool head btw which is *very* important wheras your cops fire away willy-nilly. > Last time I was at the range, there was a kid shooting a semi-automatic > AK47, and although the rifle was half his size, he was shooting very > nice groups. Fine. A range is the right place to do it. Graham > Absolute rubbish. Either you can shoot or you can't. I did OK btw. Oh ok. You're must be a good shot then. WHat a dumb statement, coming even from you. > important wheras your cops fire away willy-nilly. Another dumb statement. We live a lawsuit-happy society. Cop cars have dashboard cameras. > Fine. A range is the right place to do it. I'm also plinking in the woods, not far from my house. Is that bad? >>Your cops grow up fearing guns, and stay that way. > > No they don't. No-one here *fears* guns because they're an non-issue. No one here *fears* guns either. > You simply > don't come across them in normal life. Nor do we, sonny. Nor do we. > I've never walked outt he door thinking > "oh dear will I get shot today" becasue it's almost unheard of. Do you think people in the US walk out the door everyday in fear? Sorry, but we do not. > The USA has something like *40 times* more gun deaths per head of population > than we do. So? (And actually, it's less than 40 times more). Northern Ireland has about half as many. Do you quake in your boots when (and if) you go there? >>A few weeks of training cannot bring you to skill level of someone who has >>been shooting guns for fun since childhood. > > Absolute rubbish. Either you can shoot or you can't. Was the statement "Absolute rubbish" supposed to be a warning for your "rubbish" claim made immediately afterwards? > I did OK btw. What's "OK" in your book? You managed not to shoot yourself? >>> Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> I said *our* armed police are specially trained. Fantasy of Graham's. >> Your lot aren't. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > able to walk. I often see kids at my range, and they're all excellent > shots. well,you're dealing with reality,Graham is not. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Fantasy of Graham's. It's not a fantasy. Read the damn links I provided ! Such as...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO19 I knew a couple of SO19 ofifcers in fact. Graham >> >> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the end of >> >> the officers shift. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Only if they carry their guns with them off-duty. That is required by most police departments. >> I'm confused...you said you can trust cops to safely handle guns? > >I said *our* armed police are specially trained. Your lot aren't. Sure they are. DPH >Graham >>> Orlando now has the policy that all guns must be turned in at the >>> end of the officers shift. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not. Off duty cops if armed can stop robberies, muggings, etc. I'm > confused...you said you can trust cops to safely handle guns? It was an off-duty cop that stopped the Utah mall shooting. Of course,one could then say an off-duty cop is nothing more than another armed ODC. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. > > Strange idea you have of 'fun'. Very strange. I'm sure his idea of fun was is not on the list of suggested fun activities the government publishes every year. >>> It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. At least no one has gone off on my unfortunate typo in the above sentence. >> Strange idea you have of 'fun'. > > Very strange. I'm sure his idea of fun was is not on the list of > suggested fun activities the government publishes every year. What would be even stranger is if I did look to the gov't to tell me what kind of fun to have. What's really odd is the fact that the pack of cigarettes I have right now says "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide." Now, if I were stupid enough to not know that cigarettes presented a health risk, how the hell am I supposed to know that carbon monoxide could be dangerous? And BTW, what the f.ck is a "Surgeon General"? Is that a higher rank than "Brigadier General"? >>>> It's more fun to shoot rabbits off my back porch with a hand fun. > > At least no one has gone off on my unfortunate typo in the above sentence. I was pretty sure it was a typo, and not a reference to the other type of "hand fun" especially when applied to rabbits. I've heard of chickens before, but not rabbits. Steve ;-) >No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane person want to carry a >lethal weapon ? The problem is that you define anyone who wants a gun as insane, which is a bit of circular reasoning. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane >person want to carry a > lethal weapon ? > > The problem is that you define anyone who wants a gun as insane, which > is a bit of circular reasoning. That not what I said at all. Even insane ppl probably don't want guns either. How about 'no normal law-abiding ppl' ? Neat strawman though. Graham >>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane >person want to carry a >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham I'd say that in my circle of uniformly law-abiding friends, gun ownership runs at about 50% or higher. The vast majority of the rest haven't made any comments that would lead me to believe that they oppose gun ownership per se, they just don't feel the need to personally own any. Either I associate solely with "abnormal" people or the word "normal" does not mean what you think it means. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane >>>person want to carry a > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'd say that in my circle of uniformly law-abiding friends, gun > ownership runs at about 50% or higher. In my case it's zero percent, although I know a couple of ppl who once had shotguns for pest control (they both owned appreciable amounts of land). > The vast majority of the rest haven't made any comments that would lead me to believe that they > oppose gun ownership per se, they just don't feel the need to personally own any. Most Britons just don't feel the need to own any. That's the way it is. Gun use here is an abnormality. Graham >>>>>No-one (normal person) here *wants* guns ! Why would any normal sane >>>person want to carry a >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Graham That's nice. I only know a very few gay people. Does that mean we should imprison gays because they're not normal? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > Most Britons just don't feel the need to own any. That's the way it is. Gun use > here is an > abnormality. > > That's nice. I only know a very few gay people. Does that mean we > should imprison gays because they're not normal? I fail to see any connection. Graham On Feb 23, 9:27 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Most Britons just don't feel the need to own any. That's the way it is. Gun use > here is an > > abnormality. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Graham Just because most people don't wish to engage in certain activities does not necessarily mean that that activity should be illegal, as you so clearly believe. nate > On Feb 23, 9:27 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > does not necessarily mean that that activity should be illegal, as you > so clearly believe. Far too many people have no respect for others' rights. The problem is people aren't being taught about a republic that protects individual rights anymore. Instead it's always 'democracy'. That if the majority wants something it should be. This only a mandate of conformity by force. Masses are also easily convinced and led by people of less than noble intent. It doesn't matter if 99% of people in a nation oppose private persons owning firearms, there is no reason to outlaw it for the 1% who do. The ownership of a gun, a gold coin, a computer, a knife, a shovel, a hammer, or any other object does not in the least bit have any negative impact on the rights of others. Democracy can be just as brutal a tyranny as any dicatorship or any other form of government one can think of. The key is the protection of individual rights. Democracy works as but one tool for the people to keep control of a government and protect their rights, but without limited government it quickly becomes a tyranny of the majority. Just a benevolent dicatorship or monarchy can respect individual rights, a democracy can choose not to. > > > > Most Britons just don't feel the need to own any. That's the way it is. Gun > > > use here is > an abnormality. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > does not necessarily mean that that activity should be illegal, as you > so clearly believe. I've never said it should be illegal. I wouldn't support that at all. There are gun clubs in t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message