Let me understand this.
You jumped into a conversation out of the blue, with personal attacks and
insults, to some one you have never conversed with.
You made brash assumptions about a subject to which you were not educated on
and little knowledge about.
You had no knowledge of the poster you attacked for no foreseen reason.
You were responded to in the same manner as which you initiated things.
You were provided information to disprove your assumptions that you did not
read and now
The absolute best you can do is come after some ones spelling and or
language? Damn Beryl, you didn't need to change your screen name to prove
you are a horses ass, we all knew that already.
Bye Bye Troll
Yeah, 16 years in the Army and all my years hunting and shooting
taught me to just fire "blindly" at noise. First off stupid, my kid
has a key and would not be breaking into the house. Secondly he also
has a phone and would call vice breaking in, regardless of time. See
jack off, my kid has common sense and manners, to bad we can't say the
same for you.
Craig, I would not waste too much time with this troll. He is only
here to strit shit up and cause trouble. He has been following me
because of the spankings Sno* had been getting and was offended that
some one would dare pick on his idol and lover.
i'd have to second larry's comment. beryl is just trying to rile
larry up. he just doesn't have the sense to do it very well. i don't
think that beryl would know a gun from his ass. now, if he could kill
you with a prissy comment.......well then you would be right to be
Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, the
real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach a
But we're not dealing with that type of people here. Well, I mean there are
only a few that are very far off plumb, and everyone knows who they are.
Although the people themselves don't have a clue.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If by "very far of plumb,"
you mean the maniac who shot 32 innocent victims, 2 years prior to this
slaughter was found to be mentally ill and a potential danger to himself,
yet nobody did anything about it, and those who were in close contact
stopped going to the same classes he was in because they were afraid of him,
then I agree with you. However, there were 32 innocent victims of this
"very for off plumb" person who had no means to protect themselves and payed
the ultimate fate and probably didn't know he was "very far off plumb."
There have been several cases in which the courts have found that the police
are not required to protect any individual, rather they are responsible for
the protection of "society at large." You may reject any statistics you
want, but I notice you fail to post anything in support of your argument
except silly, baseless rhetoric.
One must use logic to reach policy decisions. Anecdotes do not scale beyond
the indivual story.
I fear the criminal in possesion of a gun. I don't fear the law abiding gun
owner, why do you?
We have crossed wires somewhere. We agree.
My statements about statistics and conclusions were meant to say that some
people just have their minds made up in a very biased skewed way, then go
about finding statistics that support that invalid position. They're mind
is made up, don't confuse them with facts. It's done in government and
politics all the time. "Normal" people examine the facts and statistics,
then reach a conclusion by the weight and content of the statistics and
evidence they observe.
I wanted to point out that there are some people here who do just that.
They have a thoroughly cemented preconceived position, and can and do find
information to support themselves rather than hearing anything new.
I have been a victim, and had a family member who was a victim of people who
were "a little off plumb." The police were contacted, and the best we could
get out of them was "if they do kill someone, they will be in a lot of
trouble." The two parties were killed about a month later during a home
invasion. They broke into a man's house. The man intercepted the
intruders, and the daughter ran into a closet. The two intruders beat the
man, then threw him in the closet, not knowing the daughter was in there.
She untied him. He then killed both of them with a handgun.
I have no fear of armed citizens, and wish the whole US was as lenient as
Vermont, where any citizen can carry as long as they do so with no criminal
intent. By reciprocity, at last tally, I am licensed to carry a concealed
firearm in 39 states, being mainly licensed in Nevada, Utah, and Florida.
I firmly believe in the idea of "More Guns, Less Crime" authored by John
Lott. There have been MANY (caps intentional) situations in my city of 1.5
million where innocent lives could have been saved by citizens carrying
I do not know if it would have made a difference in this last situation, but
I do have to believe that any resistance would have been better than what
And all the water, tears, and debate in the world will not wash away the
blood of these victims from the liberal anti-gunners who think all we need
to do to solve these situations are to ban guns and love people more. Or
throw more tax dollars at the whole mess.
Why do people do these things? Because they know they will meet with no
resistance because liberalism has neutered the American public.
In light of this post I appoligize for everything I said earlier in this
thread, with the exception of anything that followed "Clueless short dicked
eggheads." I still think you're a horse's ass, but I no longer think you
are an idiot.
I remember the shootings at Texas from the clock tower but IIRC they didn't
involve a hand gun and hand guns would have been useless unless you were Frank
Sub 22 year olds is what our goverment preferrs to give weapons too to fight our
Now picture a scenario where a gunman comes into a class, and opens fire.
I've come to believe "everyone packing" would have a calming
effect on society in the longer run, perhaps after an initial
bloodbath where it takes criminal and emotionally unstable types
to get the message that they don't necessarily "outgun" the
people around them, and caution in behavior is required.
Eventually, because there are so many more good people to whackos,
the whackos get ground down to non-existence, or learn to keep
a lid on their behavior lest very bad things happen to them.
One must wonder how one can do this, especially in an environment
where ones' individual rights are not to be violated in any way
before there is reason; i.e. before someone actually does something
I think it would be easier to impress upon the unstable/criminal
that there really are personal costs to be paid if one doesn't
maintain a cork or their social behavior.
With everyone packing a gun, I'll bet civil discourse would improve
dramatically over a long run!
The whole US should be like Vermont. In Vermont, any citizen can carry a
concealed firearm so long as they are not carrying it with illegal intent.
A gun is like a calculator. It just sits there until you need it. There
were about forty people directly involved with the shooter. Perhaps that
many or MORE who were close enough to hit him with a baseball.
Out of that amount of people (I'd say at least 100), if someone had a gun,
the day might have ended differently.
anyone flaming you for this is an idiot. one studen legally carrying could
have prevented this entire tragedy. i can assure you that EVERY student
cowering helplessly under a desk completely at the mercy of the bad guy
would have supported legal carry in their school.
when you gather large groups of people and ensure they are unarmed they are
no more better off than sheep. where sheep gather, wolves follow.
Nathan in Montana
Nate, I've had a ccw for several years and can't argue against carrying but
remember how much you drank when in college?? I do and sure wouldn't think
it'd be a good idea to have a bunch of hung-over kids walking around armed.
Way too many hormones and alcohol involved there. That being said, I
wouldn't want to trust my life to a bunch of unarmed security idiots either.
you just cant punish everyone by taking away their RIGHTS for fear what some
might do. im certain there were many anti-gun liberals who died that
day.....and in the final moments of their lives i can dang well bet they
wished they had a gun. you cannot depend upon the police, security guards,
or the good graces of the bad guys to ensure your safety. personal security
is a personal responsibility and when you deny someone the right to defend
themselves you subject them to the will of others.....as this horrible
incident clearly shows.
....all it would have taken was one responsible gun owner who was properly
trained in how to use it. when the bad guy is the only one that is armed he
has ALL the power, and everyone around him is subject to his will.
Nathan in Montana
Nate, trust me, I'm on your side on this. Somebody takes away my right to
own a weapon and I'm not gonna be a happy camper. I just don't think we'll
ever see concealed carry allowed on any campus just for the above reason.
My co-workers and me get into a discussion from time to time. A number of
them run the local dirt track on Friday nights and they're always talking
about somebody getting into a fight in the pits. And the constant
badmouthing of the other drivers. Compare that to my competative shooting
where there is an unreal amount of politeness amonst the shooters. I wonder
if it has anything to do with a .45 on the hip....even tho it's unloaded..
Pal, fights in the pit's are a tradition at just about every small track on
Fri and Sat nights. The guns are in the haulers. Hell, at Thompson in CT
when Spencer was running modifieds, heaven help the other guy who spun
Jimmy. His entire pit crew was on him. Hell his pit crew was his family and
were some tough people.
>Compare that to my competative shooting
Rules, you have rules, that are enforced at the range. Racin' the first rule
is there are no rules. It's all who your sponser is.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.