Originally posted by mrmarket
View Post
Rob's Lobs
Collapse
X
-
Since we're talking about hot topics....
Park, Park, Park.... That's a very funny thing to hear you say.... "god bless you"???? Especially since you've made it clear that you don't believe there even is a God....LOL!.... You love throwing around empty words just for the sake of posting something, don't you dude?
btw, I DO indeed get your "point", loud and clear. I've read your left-leaning posts for so long that I know your EXACT point.
Now Park.... Since you are sooooo into saving lives and keeping folks safe from all these defective handguns flooding the market.... I'll bet you were thrilled to read this today!!!! Think of the lives THIS decision will save! GOD BLESS THE TRULY HELPLESS.... GOD BLESS THE UNBORN!
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedgod bless you, Lye, but you're once again missing the point. Why did this gun discharge "accidently"? Was it defective? Did the officer not disposition it correctly at that time (no safety set)? If it is the case that this gun is mechanically defective, what quality criteria are the law enforcement agencies requiring of the gun makers? How many "defective" handguns are being proliferated among the public?
Leave a comment:
-
-
LOL! So now you want to WHAT?.... disarm the freakin' cops too!???? LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!Originally posted by ParkTwain View PostThis must be a "mechanically defective firearm" problem because we're talking here about a law enforcement officer. Awww, those darned guns! Guns don't harm people, people do! But we might be talking about a defective item here. WHICH IS IT, anyway?
//
Bullet fired accidentally strikes three
ASBURY PARK, N.J., April 18 (UPI) -- Police in Asbury Park, N.J., are looking into an accidental discharge of a gun at a local eatery that managed to injure three people with one bullet.
State police were attempting to determine how a single bullet accidentally fired from a law enforcement officer's personal firearm managed to wound three people in their legs at the Posillipo Restaurant, the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press said Tuesday.
Attorney Mitchell Ansell, who is acting as a spokesman for the family of parole officer Lt. Mark Lucia, said the unusual incident was simply an unfortunate situation.
"This appears to be a very tragic accident," Ansell said. "The family does stand ready, willing and able to assist the state in its investigation."
One of the workers remains in a local hospital, while the other two gunshot victims were promptly treated and released.
The newspaper said the shooting had occurred after a party at the eatery with the accidental misfire luckily happening once most of the event's guests had departed.
//
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedIn today's news ... another handgun accident
This must be a "mechanically defective firearm" problem because we're talking here about a law enforcement officer. Awww, those darned guns! Guns don't harm people, people do! But we might be talking about a defective item here. WHICH IS IT, anyway?
//
Bullet fired accidentally strikes three
ASBURY PARK, N.J., April 18 (UPI) -- Police in Asbury Park, N.J., are looking into an accidental discharge of a gun at a local eatery that managed to injure three people with one bullet.
State police were attempting to determine how a single bullet accidentally fired from a law enforcement officer's personal firearm managed to wound three people in their legs at the Posillipo Restaurant, the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press said Tuesday.
Attorney Mitchell Ansell, who is acting as a spokesman for the family of parole officer Lt. Mark Lucia, said the unusual incident was simply an unfortunate situation.
"This appears to be a very tragic accident," Ansell said. "The family does stand ready, willing and able to assist the state in its investigation."
One of the workers remains in a local hospital, while the other two gunshot victims were promptly treated and released.
The newspaper said the shooting had occurred after a party at the eatery with the accidental misfire luckily happening once most of the event's guests had departed.
//
Leave a comment:
-
-
SHEESH MAN! your head is up your butt!
You make no sense to me, you really do think everyone (but you) is a stupid nervous wreck don't you? LOL!Originally posted by Tatnic View PostNo, that's not my point at all. My point is that handguns are dangerous and easily obtained by very disturbed people.
Hey, here's another true story for you. Some guy in my town in Maine got pulled over by the cops for some minor traffic thing. He gets out of the car with a toy gun, but the cops can't tell its a toy, they yell at him to drop it but he comes at them. They unload their 9mm glocks into him, I think they hit him at least with 15 shots total. They didn't kill him just put him in the hospital. They never figured out why this nut job came at them with a toy gun and why he wasn't killed. He wasn't wearing any vests, just your standard issue plaid thermal shirt (common garb here in Maine most of the year). My point is that these highly trained cops were scared and not able to shoot straight enough to kill this nut, just wound him. I guess eventually he hit the ground if nothing else from the weight of the lead in him. Like I said earlier, your average, law abiding joe/jill packing heat will not be able to react coolly enough to take down some extremely disturbed nut job in a split second. This aint the movies....we americans watch too much tv and too many violent movies where shooting and killing are made to look like child's play. That's not reality. Jane or John doe are not going to stop nut jobs like Cho in 99% of the cases.
So Tatnic, you'd rather be shot like a fish in a barrel than try to fight back? What is WRONG WITH YOU MAN?!!!! OH! and I really love how your "true stories" are never accompanied by any proof. OR Maybe the cops in Maine are just bad shots?..... or maybe they should adopt 45 apc and ditch those 9's... Ssssss!
Here's a recent TRUE news story where a civilian used his handgun to save lives.... and I'll even provide a link to prove it actually happened, not just hear-say.
I can also post for you many more if you want to see them....
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedMore handguns in more places at all times= more safety!
It's kinda like the Mutually Assured Destruction theory of intercontinental missiles. Finally, the opinions of the former Cold War combatants have changed about that, and I suspect the argument that "more handguns in the hands of more people at all times" will also go away once a few well placed politicians realize that there actually is a market among the U.S. populace for COMMON SENSE. How many more mass murder events will it take? But hey, it's the guys like Cho who are putting their American freedoms into ACTION, because our society has given it to them with the benediction of the U.S. Constitution! These deranged handgun toters are the TRUE BELIEVERS! God Bless Them!
Where is the NRA PR machine today? Very silent. In the immediate aftermath, they let their surrogates, like the ones posted by Rob and like the talk-radio blowhards, get out the early-reaction propaganda to begin to "probe" for public opinion, to see how the politicians and the grass-roots folks react.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Lyehopper View PostI know you (and Park) think all those who decide to arm themselves for defense are a bunch of "low IQ", cowardice, paranoid, bumbling idiot, "fantasy living" yahoos.... but that's just not the case. Those living a fantasy are the ones who think that taking away my firearms (and those like me), will make them safer.
There's no reason for you to speak merely hypothetically about this. Simply look at other nations that have changed their laws to prohibit or drastically restrict the sale and possession of handguns. Look at the results and the numbers. Then cynically keep choosing to elect U.S. representatives who don't have the spine to be reasonable and say "no" to the gun shop lobby.
And this is not some sacrosanct constitutional issue. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution . The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the "Miller" case that the states do have the right to legislate regarding the regulation of guns. I've never heard a Right Winger address that case or even acknowledge its existence. Whaddaya know! In that article, I found this to be the key sentence: "The court has consistently refused to review lower court decisions rejecting Second Amendment challenges to firearms laws, despite numerous opportunities to do so." At some point the majority of American citizens will get off their duffs, decide they've had enough of the Right's hypocrisy and cynicism about handguns, and prohibit them for almost all cases.Last edited by Guest; 04-19-2007, 12:37 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Lyehopper View PostI agree that a criminal will act out regardless of any gun laws on the books.... There is no law (that I know of) that allows for "little Amish girls" to "concealed/carry".... So you are right, they were doomed from the start. There is however one that allows me (and you) to!
In this particular case at Tech, lives could indeed have been saved if someone with a legal concealed/carry permit had been in one of those classrooms. PERIOD!
A person who goes to the trouble of qualifying and to be allowed to "carry" is very proficient with their firearm. They fire hundreds of rounds in regular practice, if not thousands. They are trained to assume a defensive posture to make themselves a harder target and to shoot at a human threat until it's over.... and trained where to aim for most effective stoppage. Is it possible that Cho would have shot the guy with that concealed gun first? Is it possible that fear could overwhelm the guy with the concealed gun? Sure it is!.... But it's also possible that he could have prevailed and killed Cho first, perhaps as he reloaded, or at least frightened him and made him retreat. Think about it, if only one (1) life had been saved, it would have been worth it.
I know you (and Park) think all those who decide to arm themselves for defense are a bunch of "low IQ", cowardice, paranoid, bumbling idiot, "fantasy living" yahoos.... but that's just not the case. Those living a fantasy are the ones who think that taking away my firearms (and those like me), will make them safer.
No, that's not my point at all. My point is that handguns are dangerous and easily obtained by very disturbed people.
Hey, here's another true story for you. Some guy in my town in Maine got pulled over by the cops for some minor traffic thing. He gets out of the car with a toy gun, but the cops can't tell its a toy, they yell at him to drop it but he comes at them. They unload their 9mm glocks into him, I think they hit him at least with 15 shots total. They didn't kill him just put him in the hospital. They never figured out why this nut job came at them with a toy gun and why he wasn't killed. He wasn't wearing any vests, just your standard issue plaid thermal shirt (common garb here in Maine most of the year). My point is that these highly trained cops were scared and not able to shoot straight enough to kill this nut, just wound him. I guess eventually he hit the ground if nothing else from the weight of the lead in him. Like I said earlier, your average, law abiding joe/jill packing heat will not be able to react coolly enough to take down some extremely disturbed nut job in a split second. This aint the movies....we americans watch too much tv and too many violent movies where shooting and killing are made to look like child's play. That's not reality. Jane or John doe are not going to stop nut jobs like Cho in 99% of the cases.
Leave a comment:
-
-
I agree that a criminal will act out regardless of any gun laws on the books.... There is no law (that I know of) that allows for "little Amish girls" to "concealed/carry".... So you are right, they were doomed from the start. There is however one that allows me (and you) to!Originally posted by Tatnic View PostLets face it, if someone is so disturbed that they're intent on doing harm, there's not much anyone can do unless luck is on their side. Those little girls in that Amish school house....it wouldn't have helped much if they were armed.
In this particular case at Tech, lives could indeed have been saved if someone with a legal concealed/carry permit had been in one of those classrooms. PERIOD!
A person who goes to the trouble of qualifying and to be allowed to "carry" is very proficient with their firearm. They fire hundreds of rounds in regular practice, if not thousands. They are trained to assume a defensive posture to make themselves a harder target and to shoot at a human threat until it's over.... and trained where to aim for most effective stoppage. Is it possible that Cho would have shot the guy with that concealed gun first? Is it possible that fear could overwhelm the guy with the concealed gun? Sure it is!.... But it's also possible that he could have prevailed and killed Cho first, perhaps as he reloaded, or at least frightened him and made him retreat. Think about it, if only one (1) life had been saved, it would have been worth it.
I know you (and Park) think all those who decide to arm themselves for defense are a bunch of "low IQ", cowardice, paranoid, bumbling idiot, "fantasy living" yahoos.... but that's just not the case. Those living a fantasy are the ones who think that taking away my firearms (and those like me), will make them safer.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Long EBAY
I bought EBAY in premarket this morning for 34.80.
Edit at 9:39: I could have waited, obviously. Oh well.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Are “Gun-free Zones” Barrels of Fish for Shooters?
Tennessee Moves to Allow Guns in Public BuildingsNASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted [yesterday] to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.
“I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens,” said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. “I hope that is what this vote reflects.”
Leave a comment:
-
-
Guest repliedLye, I'm pretty sure we agree on alot more than we disagree, but its more fun to argue with someone who can go toe to toe with you.Originally posted by Lyehopper View PostAnd to this I say.... AMEN!
Lets face it, if someone is so disturbed that they're intent on doing harm, there's not much anyone can do unless luck is on their side. Those little girls in that Amish school house....it wouldn't have helped much if they were armed. Those little kids in the day care in Oklahoma City were pretty much defenseless against Timmy McVeigh and his arian buddies. If they were all packing heat they'd still be dead.
The last time I was in NY there was a killer who shot a bartender (the killer was mad at the restaurant because his buddy was fired), fled the store, was stopped by 2 unarmed, volunteer cops, he punched one in the face then proceeded to shoot them both and kill them. A few miinutes later he was killed in a shoot out with a plain clothes cop. One of the vol cops was shot through his protective vest and killed by that bullet. These vol. cops were trained not to try and apprehend any suspect with a gun but to call in backup. They were young and trying to be heros, it got them killed.
When I worked in NY for a summer right out of college, I was wandering around China town one day and came upon an awards ceremony for cops. It was so moving to observe that I was getting choked up. The cops receiving awards were just standing there dressed in their every day, boring blue uniforms while the announcer read their stories as to why they were receiving their bravery awards. It wa absolutely incredible the things they go through on a routine basis in NY. The only place worse is Baghdad. I used to hunt with a retired cop in the Catskills and asked him one day if he ever got buck fever....he looked at me and said..."why, the deer aren't shooting at me".
Leave a comment:
-
-
Self Defense
I just read another excellent op-ed piece this morning that is in agreement with what I've been saying on the subject of people being able to defend themselves, written by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee. This one is shorter and takes only a minute or two to read, but he makes the point very well. The text file is attached.Attached Files
Leave a comment:
-

Leave a comment: