$1500 Cash Reward

[[email protected]]

$1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
May 19, 2007:

1. King KX-99 Portable Navcomm Radio with new NiMH Rechargeable
battery pack and slow charger
2. Pointer 3000 Emergency Locator Transmitter with fresh battery and
snap-in antenna
3. Set of 1/4" drive Snap-on Ratchet Tools with Spare Flex head drive
and 3 extra universal joint sockets (3/8, 7/16, and 1/2) -- in red
plastic case
5. Set of 3/8" drive Snap-On Ratchet Tools with 3/8" to 1/2" adaptor
and two extra Craftsman ratchets, one long, one short--- new red
plastic case Also set of 1/2 drive Snap-Ons in large canvas bag
6. Garmin GPS 195 with antenna and AA battery pack (I will provide
the serial number)
7. Browning Sportsman .22 LR Semi-Automatic Pistol (Mfd. in Belgium)
with checkered walnut grip and 6" barrel in original vinyl case with
oily silicone rag
8. Colt .25 cal. Semi-Automatic Pistol with checkered walnut grips;
this is a tiny handgun that will fit in the palm of your hand
9. Mauser 9MM Kurz (.380) Double Action Semi-Automatic Pistol with
checkered walnut grips. Engraved on the action: Made in Germany,
Imported by Interarms. This is a small handgun similar to a Walther
PPK. It has an unusual hidden hammer.
All three of these handguns are mint condition collector firearms, in
blue steel finish. I am obtaining the serial numbers and will supply
them at a later time.
10. Winchester pump action 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot;
plug removed from magazine. Barrel end accepts various screw-in choke
inserts.
9. Sheridan Blue Streak Forearm Pump Pellet Air Rifle, .20 caliber --
another rare gun with walnut stock, blue finish
10. Maglite D-Cell Flashlight with 6 cells-- 18" long; police issue,
black finish
11. Garmin 496 GPS Receiver (s/n provided later)--- This expensive
navigation device was taken from a Mooney on the north ramp.
12. Vertex Handheld Comm with cracked screen (s/n______)
13. Cuisinart Blender
14. Various 2-cell Maglite Flashlights and headgear LED lights, also
LED flashlight for cockpit with red LED and white LED
15. Ryobi Rechargeable Rotating Head Flashlight 18-volt NiCad with
charger
16. Canon FTB Single Lens Reflex 35MM Camera in leather case; camera
and case damaged from falling off moving motorcycle and rolling.

We'll add to the list as other items are found to be missing.
Rutherford County, NC Sheriff's Department is in charge of the
investigation; you may obtain my cellphone number from them,
particularly from Detective Bailey.
http://www.rutherfordcountync.gov/dept/sheriffs/Detectives.php

Aircraft Break-Ins are being investigated by feds because those break-
ins are felony violations of the United States Code.

This reward is my own personal effort; others may add to it. I'll
follow up on that and with other information as it becomes available.
Beware that felons with similar MO's are operating at small rural
airports along the eastern seaboard, according to the FBI.

Any person who receives, possesses, or purchases any one or more of
these stolen items, knowing or having reason to believe the same is
stolen, is also guilty of a felony.

Vic

[Kingfish]

On May 25, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
> scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
> NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
> May 19, 2007:
>
> 1. King KX-99 Portable Navcomm Radio with new NiMH Rechargeable
> battery pack and slow charger
> 2. Pointer 3000 Emergency Locator Transmitter with fresh battery and
> snap-in antenna
> 3. Set of 1/4" drive Snap-on Ratchet Tools with Spare Flex head drive
> and 3 extra universal joint sockets (3/8, 7/16, and 1/2) -- in red
> plastic case
> 5. Set of 3/8" drive Snap-On Ratchet Tools with 3/8" to 1/2" adaptor
> and two extra Craftsman ratchets, one long, one short--- new red
> plastic case Also set of 1/2 drive Snap-Ons in large canvas bag
> 6. Garmin GPS 195 with antenna and AA battery pack (I will provide
> the serial number)
> 7. Browning Sportsman .22 LR Semi-Automatic Pistol (Mfd. in Belgium)
> with checkered walnut grip and 6" barrel in original vinyl case with
> oily silicone rag
> 8. Colt .25 cal. Semi-Automatic Pistol with checkered walnut grips;
> this is a tiny handgun that will fit in the palm of your hand
> 9. Mauser 9MM Kurz (.380) Double Action Semi-Automatic Pistol with
> checkered walnut grips. Engraved on the action: Made in Germany,
> Imported by Interarms. This is a small handgun similar to a Walther
> PPK. It has an unusual hidden hammer.
> All three of these handguns are mint condition collector firearms, in
> blue steel finish. I am obtaining the serial numbers and will supply
> them at a later time.
> 10. Winchester pump action 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot;
> plug removed from magazine. Barrel end accepts various screw-in choke
> inserts.
> 9. Sheridan Blue Streak Forearm Pump Pellet Air Rifle, .20 caliber --
> another rare gun with walnut stock, blue finish
> 10. Maglite D-Cell Flashlight with 6 cells-- 18" long; police issue,
> black finish
> 11. Garmin 496 GPS Receiver (s/n provided later)--- This expensive
> navigation device was taken from a Mooney on the north ramp.
> 12. Vertex Handheld Comm with cracked screen (s/n______)
> 13. Cuisinart Blender
> 14. Various 2-cell Maglite Flashlights and headgear LED lights, also
> LED flashlight for cockpit with red LED and white LED
> 15. Ryobi Rechargeable Rotating Head Flashlight 18-volt NiCad with
> charger
> 16. Canon FTB Single Lens Reflex 35MM Camera in leather case; camera
> and case damaged from falling off moving motorcycle and rolling.
>
> We'll add to the list as other items are found to be missing.
> Rutherford County, NC Sheriff's Department is in charge of the
> investigation; you may obtain my cellphone number from them,
> particularly from Detective Bailey.http://www.rutherfordcountync.gov/dept/sheriffs/Detectives.php
>
> Aircraft Break-Ins are being investigated by feds because those break-
> ins are felony violations of the United States Code.
>
> This reward is my own personal effort; others may add to it. I'll
> follow up on that and with other information as it becomes available.
> Beware that felons with similar MO's are operating at small rural
> airports along the eastern seaboard, according to the FBI.
>
> Any person who receives, possesses, or purchases any one or more of
> these stolen items, knowing or having reason to believe the same is
> stolen, is also guilty of a felony.
>
> Vic

Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?

[Newps]

Kingfish wrote:


> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?

I always have one pistol in the plane at a minimum. Never know when you
want to blast something.

[James Sleeman]

On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?

Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
to keep your gun collection I suppose.

That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:

1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.

[Matt Whiting]

James Sleeman wrote:
> On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
>> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
>
> Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
> to keep your gun collection I suppose.

Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.


> That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
> Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
>
> 1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
> preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
> furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
> furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
> 2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.

Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.

Matt

[Shirl]

James Sleeman > wrote:
> Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
> as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.

I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 26, 1:39 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> James Sleeman wrote:
> > On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> >> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
> >> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
>
> > Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
> > to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>
> Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.
>
> > That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
> > Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
>
> > 1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
> > preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
> > furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
> > furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
> > 2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.
>
> Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
> reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.
>
> Matt

Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!

What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

[chris[_1_]]

On May 26, 3:06 pm, Shirl > wrote:
> James Sleeman > wrote:
> > Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
> > as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>
> I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
> too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
> less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.

That's why you lock the bloody things away!

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 May 2007 00:43:59 -0700, chris > wrote
in . com>:

>What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
Iraq are able to resist occupation.

The notion made some sense in the eighteenth century, and its
underlying premise still holds today. Until the insurgents are
disarmed (at $3 billion/week all the arms in Iraq could have easily
been purchased) there will be no peace in the middle east.

[kontiki]

chris wrote:

> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>

That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
a club or a bomb or even bare hands.

As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
people to be ready to protect themselves and others.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" < wrote
>
> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

OK, I agree, and that explains one gun, perhaps two; _if_ they were at the
location the owner was presently located. I have to agree with some others,
that having a whole gun collection in a hangar (relatively easy place to get
into, and relatively low risk of a scumbag thief getting caught) lacks
wisdom.

Losing that much money in valuable items of any kind (if not guns, then
substitute baseball cards and see how it all reads) could have been
prevented by keeping them in a sturdy, bolted down safe; even if they were
at the airport.

I am sorry that this person got ripped off, and I would love to see the scum
that took everything apprehended and have their fingernails pulled out one
at a time. I just can not understand the choice of locations for all of the
guns.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 26, 1:39 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> James Sleeman wrote:
>>> On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>>>> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
>>>> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
>>> Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
>>> to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>> Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.
>>
>>> That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
>>> Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
>>> 1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
>>> preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
>>> furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
>>> furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
>>> 2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.
>> Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
>> reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>
> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

We simply value freedom and an armed populace is the only way to avoid
tyranny in the long run.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 26 May 2007 00:43:59 -0700, chris > wrote
> in . com>:
>
>> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???
>
> The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
> bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
> Iraq are able to resist occupation.
>
> The notion made some sense in the eighteenth century, and its
> underlying premise still holds today. Until the insurgents are
> disarmed (at $3 billion/week all the arms in Iraq could have easily
> been purchased) there will be no peace in the middle east.
>

Disarming never brings peace, it just causes people to find other means
to wreak havoc. You have to either remove the motivation they have to
fight or you have to completely eradicate them. There is no middle
ground. And arms have little to do with the problem in the grander
scheme. Take away the guns and you get bombs...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>
>
> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>
> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>
> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>

I agree. However, leaving a firearm in your airplane when you aren't in
it protects nothing and is just reckless and risks losing it ... which
is how this thread got started...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Shirl wrote:
> James Sleeman > wrote:
>> Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
>> as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>
> I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
> too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
> less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.

That is what gun safes are for.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 26, 3:06 pm, Shirl > wrote:
>> James Sleeman > wrote:
>>> Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just
>>> as safe as a house to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>> I wondered why anyone would keep multiple collectible guns in a hangar,
>> too, and then thought maybe he has children at home and felt there was
>> less risk of them falling into the wrong hands.
>
> That's why you lock the bloody things away!
>

Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
many parts of the world.

Matt

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> I agree. However, leaving a firearm in your airplane when you aren't in
> it protects nothing and is just reckless and risks losing it ... which
> is how this thread got started...
>
Oh I concur, I would not leave firearms in my hangar. Nonetheless,
it was his hangar, it was locked and someone broke in and stole his
property. That is the main point.

[kontiki]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>
>> That's why you lock the bloody things away!
>>
>
> Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
> many parts of the world.
>


I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

I think it has much to do with a frontier tradition of sorts. Much of the
early history of the United States is filled with pioneering efforts to tame
the wilderness, and when you're out in the wilderness a firearm can be a very
useful thing, for protection from animals or for hunting food. The "rugged
individualism" developed in this way survives today as an independence that
some express through a desire to possess firearms (sometimes developing into
paranoia).

The biggest problem in the U.S. is not the widespread presence of firearms,
but the combined widespread fascination with firearms _and_ with violence.
The Swiss have plenty of firearms, but they are not violent; and many
countries have a history of violence but not necessarily widespread ownership
of firearms. It's when you put the two together that weirdness ensues. See
_Bowling for Columbine_ for examples of the weirdness.

I personally don't see any reason to have a firearm anywhere (much less in an
airplane or hangar) except under the most restricted circumstances, but I know
that there's no arguing with the many Americans who love their guns.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
> bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
> Iraq are able to resist occupation.

The founders were thinking of specific and temporary circumstances, not
necessarily of a permanent state.

And the odd thing about American gun owners is that they worry about being
"conquered" by their own government, rather than any outside force. I guess
being able to vote is less important than being able to shoot. The fact that
organized militaries can easily overwhelp a few rifles or pistols doesn't seem
to occur to anyone.

> The notion made some sense in the eighteenth century, and its
> underlying premise still holds today. Until the insurgents are
> disarmed (at $3 billion/week all the arms in Iraq could have easily
> been purchased) there will be no peace in the middle east.

Just let them all kill each other, and then deal with the survivors (and
they'll have to deal, because they'll need the money).

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.

Not so. The reality is that there is generally no indoctrination at all
concerning firearms in countries where they are not common. Indeed, the
greatest exposure to firearms for people in many countries is American motion
pictures, which regularly feature gunplay (and hardly indoctrinate against
it).

Most people in most countries know very little about firearms, apart from the
fact that they are normally used for hunting or killing people. Those who
aren't interested in hunting or killing people aren't interested in firearms.
And while the notion of someone in the countryside having a firearm for
hunting isn't necessarily that repulsive, the notion of someone in the city
carrying one (and the implication that it is intended to kill people, not
food) is naturally repulsive to most people, in the same way that murder is
repulsive.

> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

Not if you have time to anticipate its use, which would be the case in the
vast majority of scenarios.

> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.

Only one of these works at a distance without harm to the bearer.

> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.

The United States isn't full of bad people, but it is certainly full of guns.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> We simply value freedom and an armed populace is the only way to avoid
> tyranny in the long run.

This is not true. Freedom of speech is the best way to avoid tyranny, which
is why any curtailment thereof must be resisted. And in a democracy one
resists by voting, not by firing a gun.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
> many parts of the world.

Does that include Iowa or Idaho?

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
> whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
> a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.

Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> I am sorry that this person got ripped off, and I would love to see the
> scum that took everything apprehended and have their fingernails pulled
> out one at a time. I just can not understand the choice of locations for
> all of the guns.
> --

I'd doubt if it was all of their guns, or even hesitate to call it a
collection. Three small caliber handguns, a shotgun and pellet gun.

But I do have a problem with leaving any of them laying around most of the
hangers I've seen. I certainly wouldn't do it. Stolen firearms have far too
much crime potential. Loosing tools, electronic or other hobby gear is one
thing, but we all have a responsibility to keep firearms in the hands of
responsible people.

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> kontiki writes:
>
>
>>I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
>>whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
>>a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.
>
>
> Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.

However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.

There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
only ones not looted.

Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The founders were thinking of specific and temporary circumstances, not
> necessarily of a permanent state.
>

Yeah, that's why they started a new country, they just needed a place to
camp for the weekend.

> And the odd thing about American gun owners is that they worry about being
> "conquered" by their own government, rather than any outside force. I
> guess
> being able to vote is less important than being able to shoot. The fact
> that
> organized militaries can easily overwhelp a few rifles or pistols doesn't
> seem
> to occur to anyone.
>

What would a clueless twit like you know about what American gun owners
think.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

>
>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>
> Not if you have time to anticipate its use, which would be the case in the
> vast majority of scenarios.

What a clueless twit. You can't even get grip on self respect, much less
self defense.

>
>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>
> Only one of these works at a distance without harm to the bearer.

Pointless dribble, anything to disagree.

>
>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>
> The United States isn't full of bad people, but it is certainly full of
> guns.

Every country has plenty of bad people. You just don't see them running
around your mental ward.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> chris writes:
>
>> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???
>
Snip - a lot of clueless drivel.
>
> I personally don't see any reason to have a firearm anywhere (much less in
> an
> airplane or hangar) except under the most restricted circumstances, but I
> know
> that there's no arguing with the many Americans who love their guns.

Personally you don't see a lot of things. Your foresight ends somewhere
between your number and function keys.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki writes:
>
>> I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
>> whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
>> a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.
>
> Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.

Yeah, just daily you clueless twit.

[Maxwell]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> kontiki writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
>>>whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
>>>a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.
>
> However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
> to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
> of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
> fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
> not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.
>
> There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
> and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
> and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
> only ones not looted.
>
> Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
> is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
> from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
> the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
> force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
> themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
> enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
> to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.
>

That point is lost on MX, he owns nothing to protect.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
> to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
> of varied and even self serving reasons).

Politicians in the U.S. don't care about disarming the population. Only a
fraction of the population has guns, anyway, and they don't have enough of
them to stand against the organized law-enforcement entities of the
government.

More importantly, though, civil liberties can be removed in much easier and
more effective ways, as by dangling the illusory threat of "insecurity" and
"terrorism" before an unedcuated and cowardly population. That's how just
about everyone does it, even the Nazis, and it works extremely well. It's not
necessary to disarm anyone, although some governments take that extra
precaution.

Democracies self-destruct, when they lose interest in protecting their own
freedoms. And they die with a whimper, not a bang, usually by a stoke of the
pen.

Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
protect them, it will be too late.

> When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
> themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
> enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
> to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
they never paid attention to anything but their guns.

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
> they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
> they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
> they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
> protect them, it will be too late.
>
>

You are wrong. The Vast majority of 'gun enthusiasts' (as you call them)
recognize very clearly the threats to freedom ... even the insidious
ones... probably more so than non gun owners. They have and always have
had a target on their back and are well accustomed to having to defend
their 2nd Amendment freedoms.

>>When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
>>themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
>>enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
>>to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.
>
>
> Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
> unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
> never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
> fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
> they never paid attention to anything but their guns.

Unlikely? Obviously you weren't paying attention to what actually
happened during the Rodney King riots in LA... or the aftermath of
hurricane Andrew and Katrina. Do some research and come back and
we might discuss this intelligently.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:58:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
>> bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
>> Iraq are able to resist occupation.
>
> why do you call them insurgents? If this - theoretically - happens in the
> US and the people in the US wearing weapons to defend them against a
> conquerer (as you stated above), do you then call them also insurgents?

If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming into
Iraq to fight.

Matt

[Aluckyguess]

If the Airplane is locked it is in a safe place. Now if they catch the guys
the go to federal prison.
"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 26, 1:39 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> James Sleeman wrote:
>> > On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>> >> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
>> >> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
>>
>> > Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
>> > to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>>
>> Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.
>>
>> > That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
>> > Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
>>
>> > 1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
>> > preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
>> > furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
>> > furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
>> > 2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.
>>
>> Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
>> reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>
> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???
>

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 9:39 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> James Sleeman wrote:
> > On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> >> Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
> >> would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?
>
> > Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
> > to keep your gun collection I suppose.
>
> Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.
>
> > That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
> > Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:
>
> > 1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
> > preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
> > furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
> > furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
> > 2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.
>
> Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
> reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.
>
> Matt

There were no guns stolen from an airplane and none kept in an
airplane. The guns stolen were taken from a hangar with an office
sometimes used as a place to over nite when the owner needs to avoid
traveling to and from the big city. The thieves had to pick three
locks to get to them. One lock to get inside the hangar, one lock to
get inside the office, one lock to get inside the desk. One of the
locks was a locked steel desk with the three handguns in the drawer.
The shotgun was used for over nite protection. This is an isolated
airport miles away from the town. None of the handguns were loaded or
had ammunition with them.

Leaving these small caliber handguns in the hangar was a mistake. I
left the hangar without them because I was ill with a fever and simply
forgot to take them along. I did not intent to store them there. I
took them there to have a friend impress them with confidential
identification numbers and to shoot them at the range. This ID
procedure is something very new and hi teck. We do not have a range
near the big city.

We are about to come up with another $500 to add to the reward.

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 9:46 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I am sorry that this person got ripped off, and I would love to see the
> > scum that took everything apprehended and have their fingernails pulled
> > out one at a time. I just can not understand the choice of locations for
> > all of the guns.
> > --
>
> I'd doubt if it was all of their guns, or even hesitate to call it a
> collection. Three small caliber handguns, a shotgun and pellet gun.

You are so right. I will be packing high-caliber heat until I die.
>
> But I do have a problem with leaving any of them laying around most of the
> hangers I've seen. I certainly wouldn't do it. Stolen firearms have far too
> much crime potential. Loosing tools, electronic or other hobby gear is one
> thing, but we all have a responsibility to keep firearms in the hands of
> responsible people.

Get all your avionics marked with secret numbers. Garmin and King
avionics are big marks for thieves. Then double up on your security.
Live with your airplane and your portable propety and guard it with
your life. This is what I am p;lanning to do.

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 9:56 am, kontiki > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > kontiki writes:
>
> >>I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
> >>whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
> >>a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.
>
> > Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.
>
> However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
> to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
> of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
> fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
> not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.
>
> There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
> and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
> and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
> only ones not looted.
>
> Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
> is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
> from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
> the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
> force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
> themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
> enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
> to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.

[[email protected]]

On May 26, 12:07 pm, kontiki > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
> > they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
> > they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
> > they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
> > protect them, it will be too late.
>
> You are wrong. The Vast majority of 'gun enthusiasts' (as you call them)
> recognize very clearly the threats to freedom ... even the insidious
> ones... probably more so than non gun owners. They have and always have
> had a target on their back and are well accustomed to having to defend
> their 2nd Amendment freedoms.
>
> >>When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
> >>themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
> >>enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
> >>to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.
>
> > Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
> > unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
> > never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
> > fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
> > they never paid attention to anything but their guns.
>
> Unlikely? Obviously you weren't paying attention to what actually
> happened during the Rodney King riots in LA... or the aftermath of
> hurricane Andrew and Katrina. Do some research and come back and
> we might discuss this intelligently.

This is my kind of man. This man and Maxwell are my kind of men.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
> daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
> murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.

That would depend on who might get to the shotgun first.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:32:56 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
>> insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming into
>> Iraq to fight.
>
> uh, yeah, I can follow your logic here.
> well, then don't waste your time and inva^w bring peace to Iran and Syria.

I haven't.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
>> daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
>> murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.
>
> That would depend on who might get to the shotgun first.

Yeah, it might have saved their lives, if not the out come is the same,
moron.

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
>>daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
>>murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.
>
>
> That would depend on who might get to the shotgun first.

I would rather have a 50/50 chance of survival than no chance.

[Chris]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> chris wrote:
>
>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>
>
> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>
> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>
> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>
Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:19:29 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>The fact that
>organized militaries can easily overwhelp a few rifles or pistols doesn't seem
>to occur to anyone.


There are way more than 'a few' in this country.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Except when you are carrying them, which should be all of the time in
>> many parts of the world.
>>
>
>
> I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
> whom own firearms

Most of the west and mid-west?

> than a place with one 'bad' person with
> a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.

Like Kalifornia, New York...? :~)

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Get all your avionics marked with secret numbers. Garmin and King
> avionics are big marks for thieves. Then double up on your security.
> Live with your airplane and your portable propety and guard it with
> your life. This is what I am p;lanning to do.

Then the criminal element has won. You have been defeated.

If you have to alter your life, such that you have to live with you
valuables, you are not living your life as you would like; you are living
according to what the fear of the thief can do to you. :-(
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> There were no guns stolen from an airplane and none kept in an
> airplane. The guns stolen were taken from a hangar with an office
> sometimes used as a place to over nite when the owner needs to avoid
> traveling to and from the big city. The thieves had to pick three
> locks to get to them. One lock to get inside the hangar, one lock to
> get inside the office, one lock to get inside the desk. One of the
> locks was a locked steel desk with the three handguns in the drawer.
> The shotgun was used for over nite protection. This is an isolated
> airport miles away from the town. None of the handguns were loaded or
> had ammunition with them.

There is no doubt in my mind, that someone who knew you did this, because
they had to have known the location of the guns, to go through all of those
layers.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
>> chris wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>
>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>
>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>
>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>
> Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!

Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.

[chris[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>>
>>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>>
>>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>>
>>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>>
>> Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!
>
> Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.

Hey, that wasn't me - I think whoever it was thought it would be fun to
impersonate me :-)

Anyhow, i don't see the point of handguns. Neither do the police in
this country. Why? At least with a rifle you can go hunting, but all
handgun, or anything automatic, is good for is killing people. Why the
hell would anyone be comfortable with the general population running
around with weapons like that?


All this talk of protecting yourself smells like bull**** to me - I
can't see any time when it is acceptable for a person to take anothers'
life... And when I hear that you can get a permit to carry a concealed
handgun - please tell me that's not true???

[chris[_1_]]

kontiki wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>
>
> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>
> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>
> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>

Oh my God! Please tell me you don't actually believe that??

I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??

AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty -
we sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!

[Chris]

"chris" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>>>
>>>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>>>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>>>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>>>
>>>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>>>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>>>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>>>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>>>
>>> Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!
>>
>> Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.
>
> Hey, that wasn't me - I think whoever it was thought it would be fun to
> impersonate me :-)
>
No impersonation just me and the Rambo wannabes bore the pants of me. It is
all rather childish.

[chris[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> kontiki writes:
>
>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>
> Not so. The reality is that there is generally no indoctrination at all
> concerning firearms in countries where they are not common. Indeed, the
> greatest exposure to firearms for people in many countries is American motion
> pictures, which regularly feature gunplay (and hardly indoctrinate against
> it).
>
> Most people in most countries know very little about firearms, apart from the
> fact that they are normally used for hunting or killing people. Those who
> aren't interested in hunting or killing people aren't interested in firearms.
> And while the notion of someone in the countryside having a firearm for
> hunting isn't necessarily that repulsive, the notion of someone in the city
> carrying one (and the implication that it is intended to kill people, not
> food) is naturally repulsive to most people, in the same way that murder is
> repulsive.
>

Yay!! Not only do we finally agree on something but you're actually
making a whole lot of sense :)

I have only seen a couple of .22s in real life and never fired anything.
There's just no need to have a firearm for the average person,
especially in town.

>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>
> Not if you have time to anticipate its use, which would be the case in the
> vast majority of scenarios.

And seeing as here you get in a whole world of trouble for just winging
someone, having a handgun readily available would get you locked up
quick smart!!

This link here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10120194

Is about the 2 1/2 years a farmer spent defending himself in court for
shooting a guy who was trying to steal his farmbike. The thief didn't
die, but the farmer got charged...
Over here it is **not** a right to bear arms, rather a priviledge, and
the Police take it VERY seriously who has a firearms license. Many times
I have heard people say that the fact Americans have got this 'right to
bear arms' business drummed into them is the greatest barrier to
effective gun control measures.

>
>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>
> Only one of these works at a distance without harm to the bearer.
>
>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>
> The United States isn't full of bad people, but it is certainly full of guns.

And the idea that the population is comfortable with the idea almost
scares me more than the thought of the guns themselves!

I heard one commentator over here point out after the last US school
shooting recently that if guns were as readily available here to the
sort of people who shoot up schools, we'd have the same thing happen
here. It's only the fact that angry young men have substantially more
difficulty laying their hands on the firearms that prevents tragedies
like that from occurring here.

[chris[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> chris writes:
>
>> What is it with Americans and bloody guns???
>
> I think it has much to do with a frontier tradition of sorts. Much of the
> early history of the United States is filled with pioneering efforts to tame
> the wilderness, and when you're out in the wilderness a firearm can be a very
> useful thing, for protection from animals or for hunting food. The "rugged
> individualism" developed in this way survives today as an independence that
> some express through a desire to possess firearms (sometimes developing into
> paranoia).
>

Ahh, I see. That makes sense...

> The biggest problem in the U.S. is not the widespread presence of firearms,
> but the combined widespread fascination with firearms _and_ with violence.
> The Swiss have plenty of firearms, but they are not violent; and many
> countries have a history of violence but not necessarily widespread ownership
> of firearms. It's when you put the two together that weirdness ensues. See
> _Bowling for Columbine_ for examples of the weirdness.

I have been meaning to watch that...

I understand that there are quite a few people in this country with
firearms - farmers, hunters, etc. We very very seldom hear of
shootings, certainly not deliberate ones. I also understand other
countries with similar numbers of guns per capita have a much worse gun
problem than us, so it must be a cultural thing...

>
> I personally don't see any reason to have a firearm anywhere (much less in an
> airplane or hangar) except under the most restricted circumstances, but I know
> that there's no arguing with the many Americans who love their guns.

Certainly not in an airplane !!!! That's just bizarre, in my opinion

[chris[_1_]]

kontiki wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> kontiki writes:
>>
>>
>>> I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
>>> whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
>>> a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.
>
> However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
> to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
> of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
> fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
> not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.
>
> There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
> and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
> and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
> only ones not looted.
>
> Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
> is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
> from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
> the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
> force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
> themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
> enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
> to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.
>

Those arguments are usually the ones I hear levelled against advocates
of gun control. Think about this though - IMHO it is the sheer fact
that guns are such a part of the society that they are present to be
used by criminals. If guns were controlled then there would be far
fewer for the crims to lay their hands on.

[kontiki]

chris wrote:

>
> I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??
>
> AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty -
> we sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!

You freakin' whimp.

[kontiki]

chris wrote:
> If guns were controlled then there would be far
> fewer for the crims to lay their hands on.


Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already. In fact,
we have laws for every conceivable act, and now... even
mere thought. But guess what? people still commit crimes.
Damn those criminals, they just don't want to play
along like good blokews and obey, eh?

The fact is that you live in a country where rights are
"bestowed" upon the gracious people by the police...
or politicians. In this country rights are natural...
that is a concept that is not understood for most people
of the world because they have never known it.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> > If guns were controlled then there would be far
> > fewer for the crims to lay their hands on.
>
> Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already.

nah. If you want REAL control, then you'd have to go
and collect all the guns out there. Good luck doing that!

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>>>
>>>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>>>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>>>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>>>
>>>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>>>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>>>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>>>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>>>
>>> Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!
>>
>> Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.
>
> Hey, that wasn't me - I think whoever it was thought it would be fun to
> impersonate me :-)
>
> Anyhow, i don't see the point of handguns. Neither do the police in
> this country. Why? At least with a rifle you can go hunting, but all
> handgun, or anything automatic, is good for is killing people. Why the
> hell would anyone be comfortable with the general population running
> around with weapons like that?

Hunting is one one use for firearms. Self-protection is another use and
that unfortunately sometimes involves killing people and that is the
purpose of handguns (although many are great for hunting as well).

Why would you want the general population running around defenseless
when the criminals are armed (with knives if not guns).


> All this talk of protecting yourself smells like bull**** to me - I
> can't see any time when it is acceptable for a person to take anothers'
> life... And when I hear that you can get a permit to carry a concealed
> handgun - please tell me that's not true???

It is absolutely true. I've had such a permit for nearly 30 years. If
someone attempts to take my life or the life of a family member, it is
absolutely right for me to take their life. It is not only acceptable,
I'm morally obligated to do so.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> kontiki wrote:
>> chris wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>
>>
>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>
>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>
>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>
>
> Oh my God! Please tell me you don't actually believe that??
>
> I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??
>
> AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty -
> we sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!

I'm glad you are "over there" and I'm over here. As long as you are
happy, stay there. I'm happy here and will stay here. I'm quite
comfortably knowing that at least 50% of my neighbors are well armed
(the last statistics I heard for PA). Fortunately, I live in a rural
area where this isn't likely to happen, but if a band of terrorists came
through here, I wouldn't need to call the police and wait. I'd just
call a few neighbors and load my weapons.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> kontiki writes:
>>
>>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>>
>> Not so. The reality is that there is generally no indoctrination at all
>> concerning firearms in countries where they are not common. Indeed, the
>> greatest exposure to firearms for people in many countries is American
>> motion
>> pictures, which regularly feature gunplay (and hardly indoctrinate
>> against
>> it).
>>
>> Most people in most countries know very little about firearms, apart
>> from the
>> fact that they are normally used for hunting or killing people. Those
>> who
>> aren't interested in hunting or killing people aren't interested in
>> firearms.
>> And while the notion of someone in the countryside having a firearm for
>> hunting isn't necessarily that repulsive, the notion of someone in the
>> city
>> carrying one (and the implication that it is intended to kill people, not
>> food) is naturally repulsive to most people, in the same way that
>> murder is
>> repulsive.
>>
>
> Yay!! Not only do we finally agree on something but you're actually
> making a whole lot of sense :)
>
> I have only seen a couple of .22s in real life and never fired anything.
> There's just no need to have a firearm for the average person,
> especially in town.

Yes, your ignorance was pretty obvious from your earlier posts.


> And the idea that the population is comfortable with the idea almost
> scares me more than the thought of the guns themselves!

That is fine, don't come here then.


> I heard one commentator over here point out after the last US school
> shooting recently that if guns were as readily available here to the
> sort of people who shoot up schools, we'd have the same thing happen
> here. It's only the fact that angry young men have substantially more
> difficulty laying their hands on the firearms that prevents tragedies
> like that from occurring here.

If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>> This is not true. Freedom of speech is the best way to avoid tyranny, which
>> is why any curtailment thereof must be resisted. And in a democracy one
>> resists by voting, not by firing a gun.
>
> So if I hold a shotgun to your head and tell you to "shut up", you'll continue
> to exercise your "freedom of speech"?

No, but you wouldn't want to be the the receiving end of what I would
do. I won't say as it isn't wise to give away your tactics, but suffice
to say you'd soon be assuming room temperature.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> And the idea that the population is comfortable with the idea almost
> scares me more than the thought of the guns themselves!

I've always found that the best argument for gun control is a population that
is rabidly and violently opposed to gun control. When someone fairly
convulses with terror at the mere mention of gun control, it's clear that that
person is rather preoccupied by firearms, and a preoccupation with firearms is
a bad sign.

In other words, if people were not so paranoid about gun control in the U.S.,
there'd be no reason to argue in its favor. But with so many people so upset
about it, it's clear that there is a dark obsession with guns (and with the
violence they represent) that is potentially very damaging to the society.

> I heard one commentator over here point out after the last US school
> shooting recently that if guns were as readily available here to the
> sort of people who shoot up schools, we'd have the same thing happen
> here. It's only the fact that angry young men have substantially more
> difficulty laying their hands on the firearms that prevents tragedies
> like that from occurring here.

Angry young males are a pox on civilization, generally speaking. Their
propensity for engaging in gratuitous violence is legendary and unavoidable in
large populations. Anything that allows them to be more violent will be
dangerous if it is accessible to them, and guns are pretty much at the top of
that list (nuclear bombs would be higher, but they are not for sale at
Wal-Mart).

In any garden-variety high school, there will always be a handful of angry
young males who will readily kill other people with guns if they are given the
opportunity. In a peaceful society, it might simply never occur to such males
to find a few guns and kill everyone at school, but in a society that is
obsessed with violence and rewards extreme violence with lasting celebrity, it
will indeed occur to these misfits and inevitably they will act on their ideas
at some point.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.

What other readily-accessible ways do they have of killing large numbers of
people in a short time from a distance besides guns?

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Hunting is one one use for firearms.

Game is rather lacking in the middle of most large cities.

> Self-protection is another use and
> that unfortunately sometimes involves killing people and that is the
> purpose of handguns (although many are great for hunting as well).

Self-protection involves killing people so rarely in a statistical sense that
it is meaningless as a justification for handguns. Even self-protection is
rarely required in civilized societies. And handguns are poor weapons for
hunting.

> Why would you want the general population running around defenseless
> when the criminals are armed (with knives if not guns).

In areas without guns, most criminals are unarmed. In fact, this is true even
in areas with guns, since the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime can
be very severe, and since guns are expensive.

> It is absolutely true. I've had such a permit for nearly 30 years. If
> someone attempts to take my life or the life of a family member, it is
> absolutely right for me to take their life. It is not only acceptable,
> I'm morally obligated to do so.

How many times have you had to kill someone during those 30 years?

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> You freakin' whimp.

This is not a good attitude for someone who owns a gun.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Fortunately, I live in a rural
> area where this isn't likely to happen, but if a band of terrorists came
> through here, I wouldn't need to call the police and wait. I'd just
> call a few neighbors and load my weapons.

What you are overlooking is the fact that a band of terrorists will _never_
come through your neighborhood. They are about as likely as a meteor strike.
What precautions have you taken against meteors?

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> I understand that there are quite a few people in this country with
> firearms - farmers, hunters, etc. We very very seldom hear of
> shootings, certainly not deliberate ones.

France also has quite a few people with guns, at least in rural areas where
there is a justification for them, and yet gun violence is still very rare
compared to the United States. Hunters carry guns when hunting (not at other
times). Cops carry guns. Soldiers carry (unloaded) guns. Target shooters
carry guns. But nobody else does.

> I also understand other
> countries with similar numbers of guns per capita have a much worse gun
> problem than us, so it must be a cultural thing...

Yes. In some cultures guns are familiar and accepted. In other cultures they
are considered repulsive, and very often they simply are not thought of at
all.

> Certainly not in an airplane !!!! That's just bizarre, in my opinion

A terrorist might attempt to parachute into the cockpit from above. Without a
gun, how would you stop him?

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already. In fact,
> we have laws for every conceivable act, and now... even
> mere thought. But guess what? people still commit crimes.
> Damn those criminals, they just don't want to play
> along like good blokews and obey, eh?

It is orders of magnitude more difficult to obtain a pilot's license in the
U.S. than it is to obtain a gun. In fact, you can arm yourself with automatic
weapons and cannons more easily than you can obtain a pilot's license.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> If they are really predisposed to commit such acts, they will find a way.
>
> What other readily-accessible ways do they have of killing large numbers
> of
> people in a short time from a distance besides guns?

ammonium nitrate, dip****.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

snip - clueless nonsense

Do you actually train in ingorance.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Self-protection involves killing people so rarely in a statistical sense
> that
> it is meaningless as a justification for handguns. Even self-protection
> is
> rarely required in civilized societies. And handguns are poor weapons for
> hunting.
>

Only takes once.


> In areas without guns, most criminals are unarmed.

Baseless nonsense.

In fact, this is true even
> in areas with guns, since the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime
> can
> be very severe, and since guns are expensive.

Makes no difference to a criminal.

>
> How many times have you had to kill someone during those 30 years?

Many overwhelming stories of people who have saved their lives, and the
lives of others by being legally armed.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Oh my God! Please tell me you don't actually believe that??
>
> I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??
>
> AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty - we
> sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!

I keep three loaded guns in my home, unloaded gun are about as useful as a
small hammer.

I carry one most everywhere I go, kind of like a spare tire in the car. I
haven't used either in more than 30 years. But if I ever need either, I bet
I will be glad I have them.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki writes:
>
>> You freakin' whimp.
>
> This is not a good attitude for someone who owns a gun.

You YOU'RE qualified to judge anyones attitude.,

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> Fortunately, I live in a rural
>> area where this isn't likely to happen, but if a band of terrorists came
>> through here, I wouldn't need to call the police and wait. I'd just
>> call a few neighbors and load my weapons.
>
> What you are overlooking is the fact that a band of terrorists will
> _never_
> come through your neighborhood. They are about as likely as a meteor
> strike.
> What precautions have you taken against meteors?

There are countless stories of people victimized in there homes without
warning, and it happens in every country. You don't need foreign terrorist
to be victimized.

On the flip side, there are millions of legal firearms, owned and carried by
responsible citizens, that never harm as much as a rabbit.

Allowing responsible citizens to own and carry firearms, has nothing to do
with the crime rate.

You're a moron.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
...

>
> Those arguments are usually the ones I hear levelled against advocates of
> gun control. Think about this though - IMHO it is the sheer fact that
> guns are such a part of the society that they are present to be used by
> criminals. If guns were controlled then there would be far fewer for the
> crims to lay their hands on.

That really has little to do with reality. If criminals can import herion
and cocane, what do you think would stop them from importing firearms?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is orders of magnitude more difficult to obtain a pilot's license in
> the
> U.S. than it is to obtain a gun. In fact, you can arm yourself with
> automatic
> weapons and cannons more easily than you can obtain a pilot's license.

That's because we are scared ****less, that some moron like you will try to
fly a plane.

We can just simply shoot you, but a plane would be harder to stop.

[601XL Builder]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:58:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
>>> bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
>>> Iraq are able to resist occupation.
>>
>> why do you call them insurgents? If this - theoretically - happens in the
>> US and the people in the US wearing weapons to defend them against a
>> conquerer (as you stated above), do you then call them also insurgents?
>
> If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
> insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming into
> Iraq to fight.
>
> Matt

No really they wouldn't be.

in·sur·gent (Ä*n-sûr'jÉ™nt)
adj.
Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

[601XL Builder]

chris wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
>>>>> worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
>>>>> firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
>>>>> in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
>>>>> in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!
>>>>>
>>>> That's because you have been indoctrinated to fear firearms and
>>>> that no "good' person should ever need one and they are 'dangerous'.
>>>> A "locked away" gun is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
>>>>
>>>> Let me tell you it is the person holding the firearm that is
>>>> dangerous, and if it were not a pistol it could be a knife,
>>>> a club or a bomb or even bare hands.
>>>>
>>>> As long as the world is full of 'bad' people it is up to 'good'
>>>> people to be ready to protect themselves and others.
>>>>
>>> Yawn, Yawn, Yawn!
>>
>> Don't worry, we'll even protect ignorant folk such as yourself.
>
> Hey, that wasn't me - I think whoever it was thought it would be fun to
> impersonate me :-)
>
> Anyhow, i don't see the point of handguns. Neither do the police in
> this country. Why? At least with a rifle you can go hunting, but all
> handgun, or anything automatic, is good for is killing people. Why the
> hell would anyone be comfortable with the general population running
> around with weapons like that?
>
>
> All this talk of protecting yourself smells like bull**** to me - I
> can't see any time when it is acceptable for a person to take anothers'
> life... And when I hear that you can get a permit to carry a concealed
> handgun - please tell me that's not true???

It's not only true but I have such a permit in my pocket as I type this.

As far as not ever seeing a time when taking a life is acceptable. I
have to ask would you not do so to protect your family? If not that is
just sad.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> ammonium nitrate, dip****.

Ammonium nitrate won't do it. I asked about something readily accessible.
Something convenient and easy to use, in other words. Something that kills at
a distance without endangering the killer. Something that can be used on the
spur of the moment.

Ammonium nitrate, even when used as a bomb ingredient, does not meet these
criteria. There have been very few mass murders carried out by individuals
with ammonium nitrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> There are countless stories of people victimized in there homes without
> warning, and it happens in every country.

The number of stories and victims is far smaller than the number of potential
victims. In other words, it is extremely unlikely from a statistical
standpoint, sensationalized media reports of the occasional exceptions not
withstanding.

> You don't need foreign terrorist to be victimized.

You don't need a gun for protection.

> On the flip side, there are millions of legal firearms, owned and carried by
> responsible citizens, that never harm as much as a rabbit.

Why are these responsible citizens carrying firearms?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> I keep three loaded guns in my home, unloaded gun are about as useful as a
> small hammer.

And about as safe.

> I carry one most everywhere I go, kind of like a spare tire in the car. I
> haven't used either in more than 30 years.

What else do you carry that you have no used in more than 30 years?

What are you afraid of?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> That's because we are scared ****less, that some moron like you will try to
> fly a plane.

It does sound like you are scared ****less, if you carry a gun with you
everywhere.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> That really has little to do with reality. If criminals can import herion
> and cocane, what do you think would stop them from importing firearms?

The very vast majority of criminals cannot import heroin or cocaine; smuggling
is usually a job for specialists.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> ammonium nitrate, dip****.
>
> Ammonium nitrate won't do it. I asked about something readily accessible.
> Something convenient and easy to use, in other words. Something that
> kills at
> a distance without endangering the killer. Something that can be used on
> the
> spur of the moment.
>
> Ammonium nitrate, even when used as a bomb ingredient, does not meet these
> criteria. There have been very few mass murders carried out by
> individuals
> with ammonium nitrate.

This time I'm glad you are clueless.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> There are countless stories of people victimized in there homes without
>> warning, and it happens in every country.
>
> The number of stories and victims is far smaller than the number of
> potential
> victims. In other words, it is extremely unlikely from a statistical
> standpoint, sensationalized media reports of the occasional exceptions not
> withstanding.
>
>> You don't need foreign terrorist to be victimized.
>
> You don't need a gun for protection.
>
>> On the flip side, there are millions of legal firearms, owned and carried
>> by
>> responsible citizens, that never harm as much as a rabbit.
>
> Why are these responsible citizens carrying firearms?

You really don't get it, do you moron? Another of the many topic of which
you have no understanding. Sorry you can't simulate it.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> I keep three loaded guns in my home, unloaded gun are about as useful as
>> a
>> small hammer.
>
> And about as safe.
>
>> I carry one most everywhere I go, kind of like a spare tire in the car. I
>> haven't used either in more than 30 years.
>
> What else do you carry that you have no used in more than 30 years?
>
> What are you afraid of?


Mentally ill people like you. Many get tired of mouthing all the time and
take physical action. Your mentality is very much like most criminals.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> That's because we are scared ****less, that some moron like you will try
>> to
>> fly a plane.
>
> It does sound like you are scared ****less, if you carry a gun with you
> everywhere.

Just like a spare tire to me. Never plan to need it. Like keeping good tires
on my car, I avoid dangerous situations. But if I every have need for
either, they are both there for my convenience.

Don't you carry a spare tire for you car? Or have you ever owned one?

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> That really has little to do with reality. If criminals can import herion
>> and cocane, what do you think would stop them from importing firearms?
>
> The very vast majority of criminals cannot import heroin or cocaine;
> smuggling
> is usually a job for specialists.

Regardless of who does the smuggling, if there was a market, it would be
supplied. Clueless twits like you don't even realize how many illegal
automatic weapons a smuggled every year. For the hard to get items, the
supply is already there.

Gun laws are just like drug laws, the only people abiding are the people
that are not a problem anyway.

But I can't imagine your understand such a complex subject, so you ignorance
is understandable.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Just like a spare tire to me. Never plan to need it.

Then why carry it?

> Like keeping good tires
> on my car, I avoid dangerous situations. But if I every have need for
> either, they are both there for my convenience.

Did the car come without a spare tire?

> Don't you carry a spare tire for you car? Or have you ever owned one?

I've owned cars, but they came with spare tires. I've never explicitly loaded
a spare tire into a car, nor have I given spare tires much thought. I've
never had a flat tire.

[Maxwell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
>
>>I carry one most everywhere I go,
>
> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
> vicinity.
>

Actually that's quite illegal in my state. If you carry a concealed weapon,
you are responsible for keeping it concealed. It's actually a felony to
inform anyone except law enforcement, that you have a weapon. Unless of
coarse you are presented with a situation that pemits you to actually use
it.

I think the legislative intent is to eliminate the possibility that someone
would use it for intimidation during simple civil disputes.

I was quite uncomfortable with the conceal carry concept when it was
initially announced in my state. But after completing the necessary training
to get the license, I began to realize the entire self defense act was
actually very well written. I think if more opponents of conceal carry would
either take the training, or study the actual laws, they would find
themselves much more reassured even if they have no interest in owning or
carrying a firearm.

For some reason, the violent crime rate dropped by 27% the first year in my
state. And I have yet to hear of a licensed individual causing a problem
because they carry a weapon. But I have heard of at least a few incidents,
where it actually saved someone's life.

So if conceal carry laws worry you, take a closer look. It is a much safer
program that initially meets the eye.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Just like a spare tire to me. Never plan to need it.
>
> Then why carry it?
>
>> Like keeping good tires
>> on my car, I avoid dangerous situations. But if I every have need for
>> either, they are both there for my convenience.
>
> Did the car come without a spare tire?
>
>> Don't you carry a spare tire for you car? Or have you ever owned one?
>
> I've owned cars, but they came with spare tires. I've never explicitly
> loaded
> a spare tire into a car, nor have I given spare tires much thought. I've
> never had a flat tire.

Same with conceal carry. I never plan to use it, or put myself in harms way.
But just like a spare tire, if I every need it, it's very reassuring to know
I am qualified and licensed to have it.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Same with conceal carry. I never plan to use it, or put myself in harms way.
> But just like a spare tire, if I every need it, it's very reassuring to know
> I am qualified and licensed to have it.

Why do you want it concealed?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> chris wrote:
> > If guns were controlled then there would be far
>> fewer for the crims to lay their hands on.
>
>
> Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already. In fact,
> we have laws for every conceivable act, and now... even
> mere thought. But guess what? people still commit crimes.
> Damn those criminals, they just don't want to play
> along like good blokews and obey, eh?
>
> The fact is that you live in a country where rights are
> "bestowed" upon the gracious people by the police...
> or politicians. In this country rights are natural...
> that is a concept that is not understood for most people
> of the world because they have never known it.
>

/quote

Let's go back to 1888 and the Senate Committee on Education. The committee
was addressing local control of education. Concerned was expressed that
local control of the government education process might actually result in
our children being taught too much! The committee report actually says "We
believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late
years manifesting itself among the laboring classes." In other words, the
more someone knows the more discontent they become in later years.
Discontent with what? Their rulers?

....

We go to the Rockefeller Education Board. This is the group that funded the
creation of many of our early government schools around the country. Direct
quote my dear friends ... read this and try to absorb it:

"In our dreams ... people yield themselves with perfect docility to our
molding hands. The present educational conventions (intellectual and
character education) fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we
work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk."



/end quote



I'll leave it up to you smart folks to figure out how this dovetails.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> chris wrote:
>
>>
>> I suppose you leave your guns loaded too??
>>
>> AFAIK you can't even get a handgun over here without great difficulty -
>> we sure as hell don't want a bunch of people running around with guns!!
>
> You freakin' whimp.

Notice that in the past ten years or so (or twenty in some places) that
crime rates outside the US (ie, Canana, UK, Europe) are rising
precipitously, while, in the US, all those gun toters have falling crime
rates.

Now, before the kneejerks come out that we have fewer robberies, we have
more murders, note that every other country COUNTS their crimes way
differently.

Also, since the most stringent gun control in the first world is MExico, can
someone explain why every category of crime there is higher? Can someone
elxplain the reciprocal in Switzerland?

Lastly, does anyone want to re-calulate murder rates if governments are not
EXEMPT? (No, that doesn't mean executions for crimes following a proper due
process).

[Matt Whiting]

601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:58:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>> The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
>>>> bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
>>>> Iraq are able to resist occupation.
>>>
>>> why do you call them insurgents? If this - theoretically - happens in
>>> the
>>> US and the people in the US wearing weapons to defend them against a
>>> conquerer (as you stated above), do you then call them also insurgents?
>>
>> If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
>> insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming
>> into Iraq to fight.
>>
>> Matt
>
> No really they wouldn't be.
>
> in·sur·gent (Ä*n-sûr'jÉ™nt)
> adj.
> Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government.
> Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

So that means that all of the Democrats in the US are now insurgents?
I love it! :-)

Matt

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
>
>
>>Same with conceal carry. I never plan to use it, or put myself in harms way.
>>But just like a spare tire, if I every need it, it's very reassuring to know
>>I am qualified and licensed to have it.
>
>
> Why do you want it concealed?

Jeeze, you can't be that ignorant. At times you display amazing
understanding... and other times amazing ignorance.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
>
>> I carry one most everywhere I go,
>
> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
> vicinity.

That is why we don't advertise the fact that we are carrying. It is
better to keep some things private. You won't know until I need to
defend myself.

Matt

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
>
> >>I carry one most everywhere I go,
>
> > and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
> > I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
> > vicinity.
>
> Actually that's quite illegal in my state. If you carry a concealed weapon,
> you are responsible for keeping it concealed. It's actually a felony to
> inform anyone except law enforcement, that you have a weapon. Unless of
> coarse you are presented with a situation that pemits you to actually use
> it.
>
> I think the legislative intent is to eliminate the possibility that someone
> would use it for intimidation during simple civil disputes.
>
> I was quite uncomfortable with the conceal carry concept when it was
> initially announced in my state. But after completing the necessary training
> to get the license, I began to realize the entire self defense act was
> actually very well written. I think if more opponents of conceal carry would
> either take the training, or study the actual laws, they would find
> themselves much more reassured even if they have no interest in owning or
> carrying a firearm.
>
> For some reason, the violent crime rate dropped by 27% the first year in my
> state. And I have yet to hear of a licensed individual causing a problem
> because they carry a weapon. But I have heard of at least a few incidents,
> where it actually saved someone's life.
>
> So if conceal carry laws worry you, take a closer look. It is a much safer
> program that initially meets the eye.

>From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
gun.. Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
hold up the bank???

Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
shoot him if he comes at you???

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
>>>> I carry one most everywhere I go,
>>> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
>>> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
>>> vicinity.
>> Actually that's quite illegal in my state. If you carry a concealed weapon,
>> you are responsible for keeping it concealed. It's actually a felony to
>> inform anyone except law enforcement, that you have a weapon. Unless of
>> coarse you are presented with a situation that pemits you to actually use
>> it.
>>
>> I think the legislative intent is to eliminate the possibility that someone
>> would use it for intimidation during simple civil disputes.
>>
>> I was quite uncomfortable with the conceal carry concept when it was
>> initially announced in my state. But after completing the necessary training
>> to get the license, I began to realize the entire self defense act was
>> actually very well written. I think if more opponents of conceal carry would
>> either take the training, or study the actual laws, they would find
>> themselves much more reassured even if they have no interest in owning or
>> carrying a firearm.
>>
>> For some reason, the violent crime rate dropped by 27% the first year in my
>> state. And I have yet to hear of a licensed individual causing a problem
>> because they carry a weapon. But I have heard of at least a few incidents,
>> where it actually saved someone's life.
>>
>> So if conceal carry laws worry you, take a closer look. It is a much safer
>> program that initially meets the eye.
>
>>From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
> gun.. Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
> their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
> guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
> hold up the bank???
>
> Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
> they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> shoot him if he comes at you???

It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> shoot him if he comes at you???

This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
just a regular guy protecting himself.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> That is why we don't advertise the fact that we are carrying. It is
> better to keep some things private.

Like guns, and erections, both of which often go together.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> Jeeze, you can't be that ignorant. At times you display amazing
> understanding... and other times amazing ignorance.

In Arizona, people walk around with guns visible.

So again, why does he want it concealed?

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 10:03 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
> >>>> I carry one most everywhere I go,
> >>> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
> >>> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
> >>> vicinity.
> >> Actually that's quite illegal in my state. If you carry a concealed weapon,
> >> you are responsible for keeping it concealed. It's actually a felony to
> >> inform anyone except law enforcement, that you have a weapon. Unless of
> >> coarse you are presented with a situation that pemits you to actually use
> >> it.
>
> >> I think the legislative intent is to eliminate the possibility that someone
> >> would use it for intimidation during simple civil disputes.
>
> >> I was quite uncomfortable with the conceal carry concept when it was
> >> initially announced in my state. But after completing the necessary training
> >> to get the license, I began to realize the entire self defense act was
> >> actually very well written. I think if more opponents of conceal carry would
> >> either take the training, or study the actual laws, they would find
> >> themselves much more reassured even if they have no interest in owning or
> >> carrying a firearm.
>
> >> For some reason, the violent crime rate dropped by 27% the first year in my
> >> state. And I have yet to hear of a licensed individual causing a problem
> >> because they carry a weapon. But I have heard of at least a few incidents,
> >> where it actually saved someone's life.
>
> >> So if conceal carry laws worry you, take a closer look. It is a much safer
> >> program that initially meets the eye.
>
> >>From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
> > gun.. Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
> > their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
> > guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
> > hold up the bank???
>
> > Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
> > they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
> > Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> > almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> > shoot him if he comes at you???
>
> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
weapon.

When you start to rely on having a gun and don't take every practical
step to *avoid* the situation in the first place then it's definitely
gone too far.

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> How many times have you had to kill someone during those 30 years?

If you are ever confronted with someone intent on doing harm
to you or taking your life or property, be sure and make it
clear to him that he will be breaking the law if he does so.

[kontiki]

chris wrote:

>
> There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
> weapon.
>

name a couple... name one.

> When you start to rely on having a gun and don't take every practical
> step to *avoid* the situation in the first place then it's definitely
> gone too far.
>

Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
"victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
gang or drug related violence here.


Your self righteousness is insulting. If only all of our heads came
to such sharp a point as yours life would be so wonderful.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> chris writes:
> > Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> > almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> > shoot him if he comes at you???
>
> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
> just a regular guy protecting himself.

Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 10:27 am, kontiki > wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
> > There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
> > weapon.
>
> name a couple... name one.
>
> > When you start to rely on having a gun and don't take every practical
> > step to *avoid* the situation in the first place then it's definitely
> > gone too far.
>
> Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
> and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
> "victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
> gang or drug related violence here.
>
> Your self righteousness is insulting. If only all of our heads came
> to such sharp a point as yours life would be so wonderful.

It's a pity that my expressing an opinion different to your own
results in my being described as self righteous. What happened to free
speech???

[Jim Logajan]

chris > wrote:
> From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
> gun..

That was true even before the law. What leads you to believe a nut job
would be stopped by a ban against concealed weapons?

> Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
> their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
> guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
> hold up the bank??

The answers to these rhetorical questions appear to be identical regardless
whether concealed weapons are allowed or disallowed by the law. So what was
the point of asking them?

[kontiki]

chris wrote:

>
> It's a pity that my expressing an opinion different to your own
> results in my being described as self righteous. What happened to free
> speech???
>

Sir tell me where I have attempted to abridge your freedom of speech?

What is a pity is that someone feels that their freedom of speech
has been limited or suppressed simply because an opinion opposite
to the one they hold dear has been expressed by another.

What this tells me is that you may not understand the meaning
of the word 'freedom' in and of itself.

[Jim Logajan]

chris > wrote:
> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)

Whether to get out or not seems to vary with the circumstances and there
seem to be some different suggestions:

http://justice.adanaslaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1122100.html

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 28, 10:03 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> chris wrote:
>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 10:48:05 -0500, Maxwell wrote:
>>>>>> I carry one most everywhere I go,
>>>>> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
>>>>> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
>>>>> vicinity.
>>>> Actually that's quite illegal in my state. If you carry a concealed weapon,
>>>> you are responsible for keeping it concealed. It's actually a felony to
>>>> inform anyone except law enforcement, that you have a weapon. Unless of
>>>> coarse you are presented with a situation that pemits you to actually use
>>>> it.
>>>> I think the legislative intent is to eliminate the possibility that someone
>>>> would use it for intimidation during simple civil disputes.
>>>> I was quite uncomfortable with the conceal carry concept when it was
>>>> initially announced in my state. But after completing the necessary training
>>>> to get the license, I began to realize the entire self defense act was
>>>> actually very well written. I think if more opponents of conceal carry would
>>>> either take the training, or study the actual laws, they would find
>>>> themselves much more reassured even if they have no interest in owning or
>>>> carrying a firearm.
>>>> For some reason, the violent crime rate dropped by 27% the first year in my
>>>> state. And I have yet to hear of a licensed individual causing a problem
>>>> because they carry a weapon. But I have heard of at least a few incidents,
>>>> where it actually saved someone's life.
>>>> So if conceal carry laws worry you, take a closer look. It is a much safer
>>>> program that initially meets the eye.
>>> >From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
>>> gun.. Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
>>> their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
>>> guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
>>> hold up the bank???
>>> Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
>>> they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
> weapon.
>
> When you start to rely on having a gun and don't take every practical
> step to *avoid* the situation in the first place then it's definitely
> gone too far.
>

Avoidance is always preferred and attempted. What makes you think
otherwise?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> chris writes:
>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
>> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
>> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
>> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
>> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
>> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
>> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
>> just a regular guy protecting himself.
>
> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)
>

It is highly inadvisable to get out of the car. You should remain in
the car, roll down you window and then keep your hands on the steering
wheel.

Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.

Matt

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 11:15 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> chris writes:
> >>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> >>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> >>> shoot him if he comes at you???
> >> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
> >> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
> >> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
> >> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
> >> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
> >> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
> >> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
> >> just a regular guy protecting himself.
>
> > Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
> > over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
> > always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
> > come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)
>
> It is highly inadvisable to get out of the car. You should remain in
> the car, roll down you window and then keep your hands on the steering
> wheel.
>
> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why???

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 28, 11:15 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> chris wrote:
>>> On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> chris writes:
>>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>>> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
>>>> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
>>>> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
>>>> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
>>>> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
>>>> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
>>>> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
>>>> just a regular guy protecting himself.
>>> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
>>> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
>>> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
>>> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)
>> It is highly inadvisable to get out of the car. You should remain in
>> the car, roll down you window and then keep your hands on the steering
>> wheel.
>>
>> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Why???
>

The officer has no idea who is in the car, what they may be high on or
what they may have just done. We had a local police officer killed a
year or so ago when he pulled over a car with three people who had just
robbed a bank. Unfortunately, the call had not yet been dispatched and
he wasn't aware that the robbery had just been committed.

It is safer for the officer if the car occupants remain inside until
they have been identified and a radio check made for any outstanding
warrants.

99 out of 100 stops are routine, but it is the 1% that can get an
officer killed. Having the occupants remain in the car gives them more
control of the situation until they have it scoped out fully.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> If you are ever confronted with someone intent on doing harm
> to you or taking your life or property, be sure and make it
> clear to him that he will be breaking the law if he does so.

He would probably already know that. I've already cited the law in the past
to people assaulting me, and that has calmed them.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
> and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
> "victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
> gang or drug related violence here.

Then the solution is to not look like a good victim, thereby avoiding the
crime in the first place.

[Mxsmanic]

kontiki writes:

> What is a pity is that someone feels that their freedom of speech
> has been limited or suppressed simply because an opinion opposite
> to the one they hold dear has been expressed by another.

When someone starts advocating acts of terrorism against the person holding
the unconventional opinion, you may feel differently.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Avoidance is always preferred and attempted. What makes you think
> otherwise?

The fact that some people carry guns, which is clearly not a tactic of
avoidance.

[Mxsmanic]

chris writes:

> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)

It's usually best to wait in the car with your hands clearly visible.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.

Why? It's not illegal. And if the officer is competent, it doesn't matter
whether or not he is ticked off.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 12:19 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > On May 28, 11:15 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> chris wrote:
> >>> On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>> chris writes:
> >>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> >>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> >>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
> >>>> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when you
> >>>> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of the
> >>>> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops are
> >>>> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not an
> >>>> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
> >>>> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal situations,
> >>>> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
> >>>> just a regular guy protecting himself.
> >>> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
> >>> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
> >>> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
> >>> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)
> >> It is highly inadvisable to get out of the car. You should remain in
> >> the car, roll down you window and then keep your hands on the steering
> >> wheel.
>
> >> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>
> >> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why???
>
> The officer has no idea who is in the car, what they may be high on or
> what they may have just done. We had a local police officer killed a
> year or so ago when he pulled over a car with three people who had just
> robbed a bank. Unfortunately, the call had not yet been dispatched and
> he wasn't aware that the robbery had just been committed.
>
> It is safer for the officer if the car occupants remain inside until
> they have been identified and a radio check made for any outstanding
> warrants.
>
> 99 out of 100 stops are routine, but it is the 1% that can get an
> officer killed. Having the occupants remain in the car gives them more
> control of the situation until they have it scoped out fully.
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I see.. I sort of thought if you sat in your car the police can't see
if you've got a weapon on you until they're right up to your window
but if you get out and stand up they can see your hands are empty. Or
am I talking crap again? :)

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.

I discovered another thing that tick them off: I was following a friend's
car. Said friend got stopped by a police car (I can't remember why,
missing sticker, or something like that); well, I just stopped
behind them both, thinking that I'll just wait for whatever they were
up to to be over; ooops, big mistake.

--Sylvain

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 1:51 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>
> I discovered another thing that tick them off: I was following a friend's
> car. Said friend got stopped by a police car (I can't remember why,
> missing sticker, or something like that); well, I just stopped
> behind them both, thinking that I'll just wait for whatever they were
> up to to be over; ooops, big mistake.
>
> --Sylvain

Really?? They've obviously got even less of a sense of humour than our
police!!

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
chris > wrote:

> There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
> weapon.

so you admit that carrying a deadly weapon is indeed one way to
defend yourself.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Don Tuite]

On 27 May 2007 18:59:51 -0700, chris > wrote:

>On May 28, 1:51 pm, Sylvain > wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> > Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>>
>> I discovered another thing that tick them off: I was following a friend's
>> car. Said friend got stopped by a police car (I can't remember why,
>> missing sticker, or something like that); well, I just stopped
>> behind them both, thinking that I'll just wait for whatever they were
>> up to to be over; ooops, big mistake.
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
>Really?? They've obviously got even less of a sense of humour than our
>police!!

They have this concern about being shot in the back. Comes from
associating with people whose sense of humor lies in that direction.

Don

[Morgans[_2_]]

"kontiki" <> wrote

> Jeeze, you can't be that ignorant. At times you display amazing
> understanding... and other times amazing ignorance.

One could say the same thing about you, in regard to this post, because the
answer is so obvious.

It is called TROLLING ! ! !
--
Jim in NC

[chris[_1_]]

On May 28, 4:20 pm, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: chris >
>
> >From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
> >gun..
>
> Legally. NO!
> In my state (and most) a license to carry a concealed weapon requires
> one to be fingerprinted, photographed, and run through the FBI database.
> You are also required to take an approved training course before you
> even apply for a license.
>

That actually sounds reasonable.. Although I would think all of the
above should apply to any firearms license!!!


> Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
>
> >their pocket? Or a bank?
>
> Carrying a LEGAL weapon? Not only do I have no problem with it and
> do so often (as does my wife)....... I wish more people would.
>
> >How does the bank teller or the security
> >guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
> >hold up the bank???
>
> AFAIK, they've never even known I was carrying a gun. I'm not exactly
> waving it around in the air as I walk into the bank. If I don't know you and
> suddenly let you know that I have a gun............You're about to have a BAD
> day.

So, I am just curious, what happens when someone who is carrying a
concealed gun accidentally drops it or something, and the public sees
the gun - do they run off screaming like they do on the movies??? And
would the knowledge that random members of the public you are
interacting with, could well be carrying a gun, make you suspicious
and paranoid of your fellow citizen??? I am not trying to have a go
at you guys, but I think this is a fair question!


>
> >Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
> >they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
>
> That's true anywhere! When I've been pulled over by the police, the
> first thing I do is inform them that I am LEGALLY carrying a concealed
> handgun. The usual question is "where?". I tell them and then ask how
> they want to handle it. The responses have ranged from "Just keep
> your hand away from it" to having the officer remove it from my holster.
> I then have to show my license to carry, after which it tends to be a
> non-issue. Actually, I think I've gotten out of a ticket a few times since
> legally carrying a firearm tends to identify you as one of the "good guys".
> I've even had conversations with officers about the gun I carry. A Sig 239
> .40 cal with a Crimson Trace laser sight and a custom action job. Hell,
> my only worry that some cop may try to confiscate it and keep it for his own
> personal weapon. :) Many of them hate carrying a Glock.
>

I think that's what our police carry, when they do carry - most often
they are unarmed. There is a Taser trial going on at the moment, but
a good number of the public oppose the Police use of Tasers because
they don't want the police to misuse the Tasers. I think it's silly
really...


> >Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> >almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> >shoot him if he comes at you???
>
> How many violent gang members of a, um, diverse racial background
> do you have in your country that have prior felony convictions and carry
> ILLEGAL firearms? Do you have a lot of brain dead liberals who consider
> criminals to be "victims of society" in your country?


In order: 1) Probably quite a few, although you don't tend to hear of
it that often
2) Lots!!!!

There is the odd gang shooting, but it's relatively uncommon.

>
> You might be interested in this linkhttp://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3047
>

I had a look at that, but I am inclined not to take a document like
that on the NRA website at face value, so I will do a bit more
digging..

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> 99 out of 100 stops are routine, but it is the 1% that can get an
> officer killed. Having the occupants remain in the car gives them
> more control of the situation until they have it scoped out fully.

Your stats are way off. Less than 1 in 300,000 stops are likely to get an
officer killed.

The supporting math: 54 officers died nationwide in shootings in _all_
aspects of their work[1] in 2006, including shootings not related to
traffic stops. There were ~16.7 million traffic stops reported nationwide
in 2002[2]. Assuming the stats between 2002 and 2006 did not change
significantly, that yields a rate of less than one death every 300,000
stops. Ironically, according to reference [1]:

"[...] traffic-related incidents claimed the lives of more officers (73)
than shootings (54) or any other cause of death. Of the 73 officers who
died in traffic-related incidents, 47 were killed in automobile crashes, 15
were struck by vehicles, nine died in motorcycle crashes, and two died in
bicycle crashes."

Obligatory aviation content from that same reference:

"Other causes of deaths included job-related illnesses (18), aircraft
crashes (3), beating (1), stabbing (1) and terrorist attack (1). Five of
the officers killed during 2006 were women."

Aircraft killed more cops in 2006 than terrorists! (In the U.S. ....)

[1] http://www.nleomf.org/media/press/LODYearend06.htm
[2] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cdsp02.pdf

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> chris wrote:
>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>
> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns in
a population of 60m.

Using this forum's normal measure of extrapolation based on population size
(usually done in respect of pilot certificates etc) we might expect the US
death rate to be about 5 times greater at about 290 deaths in the year.

But then with guns making everyone so safe perhaps that should reduce by
half the number of deaths to 185.

The US by contrast saw 29,569 people killed by gunfire in 2004, a staggering
81/day. (Source: Centre for Disease Control) (sic). Certainly a statistic to
be proud of?

With those odds perhaps everyone should be armed.

Go figure.

[kontiki]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
> Like guns, and erections, both of which often go together.

That sort of comment illustrates your prejudice and ignorance.

[Blueskies]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 21:58:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>> I carry one most everywhere I go,
>>>
>>> and do you inform people around you that you are armed? or your neighbors?
>>> I won't feel very well knowing that there are armed people in my close
>>> vicinity.
>>
>>That is why we don't advertise the fact that we are carrying. It is
>>better to keep some things private. You won't know until I need to
>>defend myself.
>
> If having the choice I won't be near *any* weapons. So it would be a good
> thing to know.
> Let's say (for the sake of an example) we'd meet and you invite me back to
> your home for coffee. I won't feel easy knowing that you have weapons at
> your home. Most likely I'd politely excuse myself for your generous
> invitation to your home (given the fact that you inform me about your
> weapons). Note: this is nothing personal against you as I don't know you.
>
>>Matt
>


http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1179501680232610.xml?kzgazette?NEPB&coll=7

[Blueskies]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>
>>Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
>>and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
>>"victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
>>gang or drug related violence here.
>
> So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would have
> carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?
>


Yes, and the folks on 9/11 would have had a better chance if they also we allowed to carry...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> chris wrote:
>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>
>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
> where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
> in a population of 60m.

I thought you said you had such strict gun control - how did you manage 58
killed?

BTW, you might know that the manner in which the UK keeps statistics is a
downright fraud.

And England had fewer gun killings when the had virtually ZERO gun control.

> Go figure

Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer deaths
than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.

Now, just because YOU have criminal tendencies doesn't mean every one else
does.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>> Like guns, and erections, both of which often go together.
>
> That sort of comment illustrates your prejudice and ignorance.

As opposed to every other comment he makes?

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>
>> Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
>> and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
>> "victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
>> gang or drug related violence here.
>
> So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would have
> carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?

I don't know what kontiki meant to say, but I say, yes, it would have
been a great idea. It would have been great also if the police and
others had acted on the fairly ample evidence that existed that
suggested these two were planning something tragic. However, the
reality is that the police can't be everywhere and prevent everything.
Had there been armed teachers and administration at Columbine or, more
recently, VT, the perpetrators would not have gotten far and these would
not rank as two of the greatest tragedies in America.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> chris > wrote:
>
>> There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
>> weapon.
>
> so you admit that carrying a deadly weapon is indeed one way to
> defend yourself.
>

I've yet to see Chris list any other ways.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:03:48 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> I don't know about NZ, but our country has waaaay less criminals,
> shootings, lower overall crime-rate than - let's say - New York City or Los
> Angeles (might be the same number of people, about 8 or 9 million).
>
> We also don't have shootings at schools or universities, we don't need
> security checks at school entrances.
>
> So what is the difference?

I don't know. I don't live where you live or know much about it. We
don't have much crime where I live either and at least every other
person is armed according to the latest statistics I've seen. I don't
know what drives a person to commit violence like this. I don't know
what drives a person to commit suicide bombing either.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> chris wrote:
>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
> where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns in
> a population of 60m.
>
> Using this forum's normal measure of extrapolation based on population size
> (usually done in respect of pilot certificates etc) we might expect the US
> death rate to be about 5 times greater at about 290 deaths in the year.
>
> But then with guns making everyone so safe perhaps that should reduce by
> half the number of deaths to 185.
>
> The US by contrast saw 29,569 people killed by gunfire in 2004, a staggering
> 81/day. (Source: Centre for Disease Control) (sic). Certainly a statistic to
> be proud of?
>
> With those odds perhaps everyone should be armed.
>
> Go figure.

Yes, the US is a little higher than the UK, but not that far apart on
the world scale. And the UK is quite a bit higher that Switzerland
where I understand a rather large percentage of the population is armed.
Go figure.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


And this map shows the UK as 6th in the world overall in crime rates.
I'll admit to being surprised that the US isn't on this list.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html


The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell me
again how great things are in the UK...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes


I lived and worked in the UK for several months. How long have you
lived and worked in the US? Personally, I found the UK a nice place to
visit, but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Taxed to death,
regulated to death, etc. I guess once you become beaten down and used
to servitude, maybe folks stop resisting. The American ethic is simply
different in this regard.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:

> I see.. I sort of thought if you sat in your car the police can't see
> if you've got a weapon on you until they're right up to your window
> but if you get out and stand up they can see your hands are empty. Or
> am I talking crap again? :)
>

You might be wearing a suicide bomb belt. That is far more fearsome
than a handgun.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> 99 out of 100 stops are routine, but it is the 1% that can get an
>> officer killed. Having the occupants remain in the car gives them
>> more control of the situation until they have it scoped out fully.
>
> Your stats are way off. Less than 1 in 300,000 stops are likely to get an
> officer killed.

They weren't stats. I was simply throwing out numbers to make a point
that the routine far outweighs the bad encounters.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:19:21 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> It is safer for the officer if the car occupants remain inside until
>> they have been identified and a radio check made for any outstanding
>> warrants.
>
> So this is done on EVERY stopped car? *whoa*


I don't know if it is done on every stopped car, but I believe it is in
most areas. The officer usually calls in the license plate before even
approaching the car.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>
> I discovered another thing that tick them off: I was following a friend's
> car. Said friend got stopped by a police car (I can't remember why,
> missing sticker, or something like that); well, I just stopped
> behind them both, thinking that I'll just wait for whatever they were
> up to to be over; ooops, big mistake.

Yes, these are basic things they teach (or at last should) in driver
education classes. Never put an officer in a position that could even
be construed as threatening. Boxing in his car is just not a good idea.
You should have pulled well past and then waited.

Matt

[Jose]

> And
> would the knowledge that random members of the public you are
> interacting with, could well be carrying a gun, make you suspicious
> and paranoid of your fellow citizen???

I think it makes criminals suspicious and paranoid or fellow citizens.
Crime goes down.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Your stats are way off. Less than 1 in 300,000 stops are likely to get an
> officer killed.

How many are likely to get an officer shot at?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

Jose wrote:
>> And
>> would the knowledge that random members of the public you are
>> interacting with, could well be carrying a gun, make you suspicious
>> and paranoid of your fellow citizen???
>
>
> I think it makes criminals suspicious and paranoid or fellow citizens.
> Crime goes down.
>

Exactly. This is a point lost on so many anti-firearm zealots. My
neighbor is a state patrol officer; owns and appreciates firearms.
I like having a neighbor like him. Likewise, he knows that I own
fireams and am licensed to carry them. We are both confident in the
knowledge that we are both willing and capable of covering each others
"six" if the need ever arose. The other neighbors benefit as well
although they probably don't even know it.

[601XL Builder]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> chris wrote:
>> On May 28, 11:15 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> chris wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 10:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> chris writes:
>>>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>>>> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun,
>>>>> so when you
>>>>> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get
>>>>> out of the
>>>>> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time,
>>>>> the cops are
>>>>> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook,
>>>>> and not an
>>>>> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus,
>>>>> they don't
>>>>> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal
>>>>> situations,
>>>>> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at
>>>>> them is
>>>>> just a regular guy protecting himself.
>>>> Are we saying that in the US you can't get out of the car when pulled
>>>> over by the police?? I have been pulled over a few times here and
>>>> always got out.. Figured if I was in trouble I shouldn't make him
>>>> come to me or I might **** him off even more :-)
>>> It is highly inadvisable to get out of the car. You should remain in
>>> the car, roll down you window and then keep your hands on the steering
>>> wheel.
>>>
>>> Getting out and approaching the officer will really tick him/her off.
>>>
>>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Why???
>>
>
> The officer has no idea who is in the car, what they may be high on or
> what they may have just done. We had a local police officer killed a
> year or so ago when he pulled over a car with three people who had just
> robbed a bank. Unfortunately, the call had not yet been dispatched and
> he wasn't aware that the robbery had just been committed.
>
> It is safer for the officer if the car occupants remain inside until
> they have been identified and a radio check made for any outstanding
> warrants.
>
> 99 out of 100 stops are routine, but it is the 1% that can get an
> officer killed. Having the occupants remain in the car gives them more
> control of the situation until they have it scoped out fully.
>
> Matt

Not to mention that the police really are concerned that you might get
hit by a passing car.

[Jose]

>>Yes, and the folks on 9/11 would have had a better chance if they
>>> also we allowed to carry...
>>>
>
> I can only imagine a different outcome that might have suited the
> intentions of terrorists even better, as it would have still killed a
> large number of people *and* taken a serious bite out of air travel from
> that point on.

What outcome would that be?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> If having the choice I won't be near *any* weapons. So it would be a good
> thing to know.

That's fine with me. I respect your right not to own a firearm if you
do not want to.

> Let's say (for the sake of an example) we'd meet and you invite me back to
> your home for coffee. I won't feel easy knowing that you have weapons at
> your home. Most likely I'd politely excuse myself for your generous
> invitation to your home (given the fact that you inform me about your
> weapons). Note: this is nothing personal against you as I don't know you.
>

That's fine. But if you truly believe that having NO firearms makes
you and everyone eklse safer, how about posting a sign in front of your
home that states clearly: "This Home Contains NO Firearms."

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> And then there are those immigration officers ... but this is a completeley
> different story.
>

You mean those worthless bums that are trying to protect the borders
of a soverign nation from unkbnown individuals attempting to sneak in
to a country (contrary to appropriate laws) in order to persue whatever
agenda they might have?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Blueskies > posted:

> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>>
>>> Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
>>> and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
>>> "victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking
>>> about gang or drug related violence here.
>>
>> So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would
>> have carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?
>>
>
>
> Yes, and the folks on 9/11 would have had a better chance if they
> also we allowed to carry...
>
I can only imagine a different outcome that might have suited the
intentions of terrorists even better, as it would have still killed a
large number of people *and* taken a serious bite out of air travel from
that point on.

Neil

[Jose]

>> posting a sign in front of your
>> home that states clearly: "This Home Contains NO Firearms."
>
> That would just be the opposite of my example.

The point is that if a home (or person) is known to be unarmed,
criminals (that's what we're protecting against, remember) know that
it's an easy target.

In a society where all the good people are known to be unarmed,
criminals have a field day.

In a society where all the bad people agree to be unarmed... well, I'd
like to see that society.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 06:23:47 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

> >Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer deaths
> >than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> hmm, Switzerland is a neighboring country. I didn't knew that. Do you have
> some sources for this claim? Please from .ch domains.
> You might mean that men on reserve from the swiss military are required to
> have their equipment (and gun/riffle/??) at home.

Every able bodied male in Switzerland gets basic military training
and is sent home with their personal weapon and a supply of ammunition.

The ammunition is subject to inspection, but ammunition for practice
is readily available and subsidized by the government.

Government subsidized ammunition obtained at a range is supposed to
be used at the range, but this is hardly ever enforced.

Ammunition is also readily available at retail.

At the expiration of the required term of service (age 30 or 34 depending
on rank), the individual can choose to keep their weapon.

There are numerous ranges in Switzerland and target shooting is a
common sport.

All this can be easily found with a Google search.

The fact that virtually every Swiss household has at least one firearm
per adult male yet has a extremely low crime rate is something the
anti-firearms people don't like to talk about.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jose]

> ... and still we have such a low crime-rate

What kind of environment do you live in? (urban, rural, neighborhood,
do you know your neighbors...)
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 06:23:47 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer
>>deaths than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> hmm, Switzerland is a neighboring country. I didn't knew that. Do you
> have some sources for this claim? Please from .ch domains.
> You might mean that men on reserve from the swiss military are
> required to have their equipment (and gun/riffle/??) at home.

It goes deeper than that. See:

"Gun politics in Switzerland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
(Links to .ch web sites in the above article.)

"Switzerland and the gun"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Regarding the U.S.: Since the United States was created by an act of
rebellion it seems reasonable to conclude that act lead to a natural
cultural predilection toward personal gun ownership. The U.S. also
originated on a colonial frontier where the gun was a necessary tool of
survival.

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
> me again how great things are in the UK...
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per capita:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!

[John Theune]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:03:48 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> I don't know about NZ, but our country has waaaay less criminals,
> shootings, lower overall crime-rate than - let's say - New York City or Los
> Angeles (might be the same number of people, about 8 or 9 million).
>
> We also don't have shootings at schools or universities, we don't need
> security checks at school entrances.
>
> So what is the difference?
>
>> Matt
>
> #m
I thought you lived in Germany? What about this?

Friday, 26 April, 2002, 21:32 GMT 22:32 UK
18 dead in German school shooting
Distraught people outside the school in Erfurt
The Gutenberg school is well-known in Erfurt
Eighteen people died when an expelled former pupil went on a shooting
spree at his school in the eastern German city of Erfurt.

Masked and dressed in black, the gunman walked through classrooms
killing 14 teachers, two schoolgirls and one of the first policemen on
the scene before taking his own life.

or this?

March 2000
Branneburg, Germany One teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who
then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.

or this:

Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, Germany Two killed in Eching by a man at the factory from
which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the
headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He
also wounded another teacher before killing himself.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> thanks for the links. hmm, I knew about the men off the military having
> their waepons at home, but I didn't knew that it was that extreme there.

Extreme? Only extrem by your frame of reference.

> Next time meeting people from Switzerland I have to ask them how this is
> handled in every day life and if they already have a chance to turn down
> military service (IIRC they had a vote on that).
>
>
>>Regarding the U.S.: Since the United States was created by an act of
>>rebellion it seems reasonable to conclude that act lead to a natural
>>cultural predilection toward personal gun ownership. The U.S. also
>>originated on a colonial frontier where the gun was a necessary tool of
>>survival.
>
>
> yes, but this has been some hundred years now. ;-)
>

Actually it has been more than 200 years since the United states gained
its independence from England. The very first clash between British
troops and colonial Americans was precipitated by the intention of
the british troops to capture the amory at Lexington and Concord.
The Americans knew that if the British were successful in this that
their chances to defend their right to the freedoms they desired would
not have a chance to succed if they were disarmed.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> No, I mean those very fine men and women at the immigration desk of big
> airports asking stupid questions to plainloads full of *tourists* who only
> want to spend *money* (holidays, you know) in this country.

Well now here we might find some common ground. I feel it is totally
inane to strip search littel old ladies at airports while leaving the
borders essentially open.

> And all this
> crap already started before bording in Europe. And this was well pre 9-11.
> BTDT, but like many others I met (by chance) we now spend our $$ elsewhere.
> So for several years now there was no "BTDT", but I heard it got worse. But
> this is OK with me. Your country, your rules. Really! (But it would be
> great if you would make this more clear overseas.)
>
Well, in case you haven't noticed... a good percentage of the world
supposedly *hates* the United States. (the reasons are varied and I
won't delve into them now).

> Just let us (me) know if anything changes (back to normal) so we (I) might
> consider your really beautiful country again for our (my) vacation
> destination and maybe for a really nice x-country. I really enjoyed
> travelling there. It now would even be a bargain (about 40% cheaper),
> compared to (eg) 2002, thanks to the current exchange rate.
>

It will probably change when most of the rest of the wolrs'd rhetoric
changes from blaming Ameica for every possible ailment of mankind to
appreciating America's efforts in providing assistance from everything
from stopping German dictators to feeding vivtims of Tsunamis.

[Jose]

> Well now here we might find some common ground. I feel it is totally
> inane to strip search littel old ladies at airports while leaving the
> borders essentially open.

If little old ladies get a free pass, that's how the next weapon would
be smuggled aboard. With or without the little old lady's knowledge.
It's like putting a sign on your house saying "no weapons here".

It is impossible to provide complete security in a free and open
society. And so long as data, discourse, and opinions are allowed to
freely pass through the borders, seeds will be planted here for citizens
to become terrorists too. It's a question of what you want to give up.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>>
>>That's fine with me. I respect your right not to own a firearm if you
>>do not want to.
>
>
> Great. Thanks. But wouldn't it just be fair of you as a bearer of a weapon
> to inform me? Just so that I can make a decision staying or leaving?
>
>

Then in that case I might like you to inform me of the sorts of
possesions or pastimes you might have... after all, I might be
afraid or offended by one or more of them.

>>
>>That's fine. But if you truly believe that having NO firearms makes
>>you and everyone eklse safer, how about posting a sign in front of your
>>home that states clearly: "This Home Contains NO Firearms."
>
>
> That would just be the opposite of my example. Besides, here it is expected
> to have no weapons around and it would be very unlikely to find weapons. So
> to answer your question about the sign: I'd have no problem with such a
> sign, but it would make no point because it is the norm to have no weapons
> at all.
>

It is expected because your country does not have a constituion whish
affirms individual rights and restricting the rights of government.
A criminal, or someone intent upon fould play will be well aware of the
fact that most people are unarmed and thus be more confident of success.
Your country has, in effect, put out the sign for you.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> But even in my office (business park with about 100 or so companies) it
> isn't worse. I am working there now for about 10 years and have never heard
> of (eg) a stolen car, robbery or any other crime.
>

The Soviet Union had a low crime rate.... but also had very little
personal freedom for the people. I believe I would rather have the
freedom than a gurantee of cradle to grave security. But that's me.

[kontiki]

Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!

Interesting. I have heard reports that crime rates have gone
up considerably in the UK since they have enacted a virtual
total gun ban.

This was not suprising, of coursem, since I am aware that
Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates of any
city in America and it has a total ban on firearms.

[kontiki]

Jose wrote:

>
> It is impossible to provide complete security in a free and open
> society. And so long as data, discourse, and opinions are allowed to
> freely pass through the borders, seeds will be planted here for citizens
> to become terrorists too. It's a question of what you want to give up.
>

Well stated Sir. I will end this thread of discourse by quoting a
respected early American by the name of Patrick Henry who once
made the statement "give me liberty or give me death".

Would that we had such principled leaders in the world today.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 29, 1:23 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "Chris" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> chris wrote:
> >>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> >>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> >>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>
> >> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>
> > I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
> > where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
> > in a population of 60m.
>
> I thought you said you had such strict gun control - how did you manage 58
> killed?
>
> BTW, you might know that the manner in which the UK keeps statistics is a
> downright fraud.
>
> And England had fewer gun killings when the had virtually ZERO gun control.
>
> > Go figure
>
> Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer deaths
> than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.
>
> Now, just because YOU have criminal tendencies doesn't mean every one else
> does.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's some other guy who also happens to be called Chris. He's
obviously from the UK, I am from NZ

[Blueskies]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message t...
> Recently, Blueskies > posted:
>>
>>
>> Yes, and the folks on 9/11 would have had a better chance if they
>> also we allowed to carry...
>>
> I can only imagine a different outcome that might have suited the
> intentions of terrorists even better, as it would have still killed a
> large number of people *and* taken a serious bite out of air travel from
> that point on.
>
> Neil
>

What?

[Blueskies]

"kontiki" > wrote in message ...
>>
> Well, in case you haven't noticed... a good percentage of the world
> supposedly *hates* the United States. (the reasons are varied and I
> won't delve into them now).
>


I saw an interesting bumber sticker today...

"49% of americans agree with 99% of the world"

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:18:39 GMT, Jose wrote:
>
>> In a society where all the good people are known to be unarmed,
>> criminals have a field day.
>
> ... and still we have such a low crime-rate ... hmmm. I bet that even some
> of the houses in my neighborhood are not locked ...

Where are you?

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
>> me again how great things are in the UK...
>>
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>
> Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per capita:
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
>
> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!

Thanks, Jim, that is a much better representation. OK, Chris, your
turn. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

kontiki wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>
> Interesting. I have heard reports that crime rates have gone
> up considerably in the UK since they have enacted a virtual
> total gun ban.
>
> This was not suprising, of coursem, since I am aware that
> Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates of any
> city in America and it has a total ban on firearms.

Yes, this is often the case, but not always. Obviously, crime is a
complicated issue and isn't affected by any one thing. Crime in Japan
is relatively low also, but I read an interesting article a few years
back concerning their police "interrogation" techniques. It explained
why they have a very high rate of "confessions" and a low crime rate.
When the police use tactics such as that, even innocent people confess
as that is easier than suffering further "interrogation."


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 29, 1:23 am, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> "Chris" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> chris wrote:
>>>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>>> I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
>>> where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
>>> in a population of 60m.
>> I thought you said you had such strict gun control - how did you manage 58
>> killed?
>>
>> BTW, you might know that the manner in which the UK keeps statistics is a
>> downright fraud.
>>
>> And England had fewer gun killings when the had virtually ZERO gun control.
>>
>>> Go figure
>> Indeed, go figure. Go figure as well that Switzerland had even fewer deaths
>> than the UK and every home is REQURED to have guns.
>>
>> Now, just because YOU have criminal tendencies doesn't mean every one else
>> does.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That's some other guy who also happens to be called Chris. He's
> obviously from the UK, I am from NZ
>

Well, both of your countries have obscenely high crime rates so if
doesn't matter much which one we are talking about.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Just let us (me) know if anything changes (back to normal) so we (I) might
> consider your really beautiful country again for our (my) vacation
> destination and maybe for a really nice x-country. I really enjoyed
> travelling there. It now would even be a bargain (about 40% cheaper),
> compared to (eg) 2002, thanks to the current exchange rate.

You wouldn't like it here or feel safe. Many people carry firearms
concealed. It is better if you vacation elsewhere. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> So why do we have a rather low crime rate?

Do you? What country?

Matt

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> kontiki > wrote:
>
>> > If guns were controlled then there would be far
>> > fewer for the crims to lay their hands on.
>>
>> Excuse me, but guns *are* controlled already.
>
> nah. If you want REAL control, then you'd have to go
> and collect all the guns out there. Good luck doing that!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>

Maybe someone else can cite the source, but I'm partial to the following
line of thought...

"The best weapon to bring to a knife fight is a fully loaded pistol."

Once they collect all the hand-guns (I'm just being the devil's advocate
here...), then will knives be next? What about baseball bats or other clubs?
I was listening to Dr. Laura the other day while I was in my wife's truck
and her comment that "the thing that scares [her] more than evil is the
failure to recognize evil". I think that's a fairly profound statement that
most of the anti-gun forces fail to comprehend.

(donning asbestos suit...)


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Jose]

> you don't expect me postimg my home address on usenet, do you?

Why not? You have nothing to be afraid of. You're unarmed, right?

:) Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:09:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> ... and still we have such a low crime-rate ... hmmm. I bet that even some
>>> of the houses in my neighborhood are not locked ...
>> Where are you?
>
> you don't expect me postimg my home address on usenet, do you?
>
> #m

No, I was thinking country. However, given how safe you say your
country is, what is the fear of posting your address?

Matt

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:09:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> ... and still we have such a low crime-rate ... hmmm. I bet that even
>>> some
>>> of the houses in my neighborhood are not locked ...
>>
>>Where are you?
>
> you don't expect me postimg my home address on usenet, do you?
>
> #m
> --
> I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

Grow up Martin. You know perfectly well no one expects your home address,
but to prove your point you should be intelligent enough to know that you
should provide country and maybe city if statistics are available in that
granularity.

Otherwise you look the fool for making such silly statements and providing
no evidence you know about what your talking.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 22:09:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

> >> ... and still we have such a low crime-rate ... hmmm. I bet that even some
> >> of the houses in my neighborhood are not locked ...
> >
> >Where are you?

> you don't expect me postimg my home address on usenet, do you?

What a twit.

Unless he's obfuscating his address, he's in Austria.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> what do you expect? It is expected from you and from us to do so. We do our
> share, you do your share. End of talking about it. There is no need to talk
> about it for 50 years.
> If you happily do it: fine. Do it. But don't expect many thank you's or
> expect that it is counted towards something else.
>

In my humble opinion we should have stopped handing out American
taxpayers money to countries around the worls decades ago. And I
have not been "happily" doing so over these years. It may be
time for a sea change.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> Can you travel to Cuba? *g*
>

Oh I can't wait for my chance to visit the 'workers paradise'.

Do I like that we've had this stupic embargo with Cuba all these
years? No... but have I wanted to go there? No. There are many
other countries in the Caribbean with better facilities to visit.

[kontiki]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>
> hmm, I don't know exactly, but I am under the impression that I am able to
> buy a gun. [though, I don't know if *I* personally can buy one, because I
> rejected military service]
>

You don't even know if your government will allow you the freedom to
own a firearm or not? Wow... No wonder the military didn't need you.

>
>>A criminal, or someone intent upon fould play will be well aware of the
>>fact that most people are unarmed and thus be more confident of success.
>
>
> So why do we have a rather low crime rate?
>

You live in a country full of whimpish people happy with the morsels
provided... hell I don't know.... since you won't tell me what country
you live in what other response can I make?

>
>>Your country has, in effect, put out the sign for you.
>
>
> No, that's why we are currently buying Eurofighters (completely different
> story *g*, but it has to do with airplanes <-- aviation content!!!).
>

Iran is building up its military quite a bit also... so is North Korea.
So what?

[Jose]

> Do I like that we've had this stupic embargo with Cuba all these
> years? No... but have I wanted to go there? No. There are many
> other countries in the Caribbean with better facilities to visit.

Not having the freedom to do something you don't want to do is still not
having a freedom.

Any idea why US citizens are not allowed to go to Cuba?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[kontiki]

Jose wrote:
>> Do I like that we've had this stupic embargo with Cuba all these
>> years? No... but have I wanted to go there? No. There are many
>> other countries in the Caribbean with better facilities to visit.
>
>
> Not having the freedom to do something you don't want to do is still not
> having a freedom.
>
> Any idea why US citizens are not allowed to go to Cuba?
>

As I stated I don't like it and think it is stupid. It started
with president John F. Kennedy and has continued to this day.
It may have been expedient at the time, but like the Berlin Wall
its time has passed.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>From what I've read it sounds like any nut job can carry a concealed
> gun.. Are you happy for someone to walk into your work with a gun in
> their pocket? Or a bank? How does the bank teller or the security
> guard out front know the guy who just walked inside isn't going to
> hold up the bank???
>
> Must suck to be the police in your country, never knowing if the car
> they've pulled over has a guy inside ready to draw his gun on them??
> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
> shoot him if he comes at you???
>
>

As I said, lack of understanding. No "nut jobs" can qualify for a gun
license in my state, and most "nut jobs" could care less if they have a
license or not.

You just don't get it.

[Maxwell]

"chris" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> There's other ways to defend yourself other than carrying a deadly
> weapon.
>
> When you start to rely on having a gun and don't take every practical
> step to *avoid* the situation in the first place then it's definitely
> gone too far.
>

Again, you statement shows you don't understand the self defense laws, and
qualifications for the license. Having a license and carrying a legal
concealed weapon does not give you the right to use the weapon unless you
have no other choice. You are still responsable for taking any and all
reasonable avoidance options.

[Maxwell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:27:30 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>
>>Sir... most crime victims were just going about their normal routine
>>and were chosen by the perpetrator because they looked like a good
>>"victim" who would not have a means of defense. I am not talking about
>>gang or drug related violence here.
>
> So it would have been a good idea if the folks at Colombine would have
> carried a gun themselves? Is that what you want to say?
>

If a half dozen or so teachers were qualified, trained and armed, the out
come would have been much different.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is certainly true in France. The average person has no gun, so when
> you
> are stopped by the side of the road, if you open the door or get out of
> the
> car, you don't have to worry about being shot. At the same time, the cops
> are
> reasonably sure that anyone who pulls a gun is a hardened crook, and not
> an
> innocent person exercising his right to carry a firearm. Thus, they don't
> have to constantly worry about having to draw and shoot in normal
> situations,
> and they don't have to ask themselves if someone pointing a gun at them is
> just a regular guy protecting himself.

Clueless as usual. Find any instance were a licensed person in the US has
exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police. Your a moron.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:00:19 GMT, Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> Grow up Martin. You know perfectly well no one expects your home address,
>> but to prove your point you should be intelligent enough to know that you
>> should provide country and maybe city if statistics are available in that
>> granularity.
>
> hmm, I thought that looking 2 seconds in the headers might have helped,
> eg: NNTP-Posting-Host: chello213047242175.tirol.surfer.at
> ^^^^^ ^^
> at = Austria
> tirol = name of county (county might be the appropriate term in english)

Are you required to use an ISP in your country of residence?

Matt

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US
> has exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.

Trivially easy:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-12-deputies-shot_x.htm

http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2003/Release_12821.htm

The OTHER side of the coin:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/05/18/deputy-not-guilty-traffic-stop-shootings/

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:00:19 GMT, Jim Carter wrote:
>
>> Grow up Martin. You know perfectly well no one expects your home address,
>> but to prove your point you should be intelligent enough to know that you
>> should provide country and maybe city if statistics are available in that
>> granularity.
>
> hmm, I thought that looking 2 seconds in the headers might have helped,
> eg: NNTP-Posting-Host: chello213047242175.tirol.surfer.at
> ^^^^^ ^^
> at = Austria
> tirol = name of county (county might be the appropriate term in english)
>
> Innsbruck is the capital of this county (and this is the city where I have
> my business; I live very close to this city, maybe 10 kilometers out or 15
> minutes by car). If you're old enough you might remember the city because
> of 2 olympic wintergames (1964, 1976).

It appears your crime situation isn't quite as rosy as you are
projecting. The trend in the USA is downward quite dramatically, while
the trend in Austria is decidedly upwards. Violent crime is much less,
but breaking and entering isn't far behind at all. And if these trends
continue...

http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/AT/crime.html

http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/US/crime.html

And as the Russian mafia takes more interest in Austria, it may well get
ugly. I think this explains at least some of the crime in the USA. As
one of the more affluent countries in the world, crime is very likely to
be high. Crime is typically about money, sex or love (probably in that
order), and the presence of a lot of money will encourage a lot of crime.


Matt

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki writes:
>
>> Jeeze, you can't be that ignorant. At times you display amazing
>> understanding... and other times amazing ignorance.
>
> In Arizona, people walk around with guns visible.
>
> So again, why does he want it concealed?

It's required by law in my state. It keeps the bearer from using it to
intimidate others for any reason. You can only display it when a situation
justifies the use of it.

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Are you required to use an ISP in your country of residence?

Obviously not. But if you look at the "Path:" header of his posts you see:

Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-03!sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-06!
sn-xt-sjc-12!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google. com!
news.germany.com!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.hotze. com!not-for-mail

What that mess means is the post originated from a machine named
news.hotze.com. Using a "whois" lookup indicates that the registrar query
URL for that domain is http://whois.tucows.com and plugging hotze.com into
the query field yields the information that the domain is owned by Martin
Hotze of Innsbruck, Tirol, Austria and provides a street address and phone
numbers.

So although Martin will not volunteer his postal address on the net, he is
hardly looking to make himself invisible. Of course a similar technique can
be used to locate my postal (home) address but I'm hardly looking to remain
difficult to find.

[Blueskies]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message .. .
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US
>> has exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.
>
> Trivially easy:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-12-deputies-shot_x.htm
>
> http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2003/Release_12821.htm
>

Neither of these were done by licensed gun carriers.


> The OTHER side of the coin:
>
> http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/05/18/deputy-not-guilty-traffic-stop-shootings/

[Maxwell]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US
>> has exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.
>
> Trivially easy:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-12-deputies-shot_x.htm
>
> http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2003/Release_12821.htm
>
> The OTHER side of the coin:
>
> http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/05/18/deputy-not-guilty-traffic-stop-shootings/

I read them pretty fast, but didn't see any reference to the shooters have a
hand gun license. Did I miss something, or did you misunderstand my use of
the term licensed persons?

[Maxwell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:00:19 GMT, Jim Carter wrote:
>
>>Grow up Martin. You know perfectly well no one expects your home address,
>>but to prove your point you should be intelligent enough to know that you
>>should provide country and maybe city if statistics are available in that
>>granularity.
>
> hmm, I thought that looking 2 seconds in the headers might have helped,
> eg: NNTP-Posting-Host: chello213047242175.tirol.surfer.at
> ^^^^^ ^^
> at = Austria
> tirol = name of county (county might be the appropriate term in english)
>
> Innsbruck is the capital of this county (and this is the city where I have
> my business; I live very close to this city, maybe 10 kilometers out or 15
> minutes by car). If you're old enough you might remember the city because
> of 2 olympic wintergames (1964, 1976).
>
> geographically: south of Germany (2.5 hours by car from Innsbruck to
> Munich/Bavaria), north of Italy, east of Switzerland & Liechtenstein.
>

It really doesn't matter where you live, new communities are being added to
the list every day. I'm glad you enjoy such a low crime rate, and frankly
hope you always do. But I would be cautious about what I take for granted.
It has cost a lot of people their lives.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 29, 10:12 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
> >> me again how great things are in the UK...
>
> >>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>
> > Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per capita:
>
> >http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crim...
>
> > The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
> > And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>
> Thanks, Jim, that is a much better representation. OK, Chris, your
> turn. :-)
>
> Matt

Wow, that's bizarre!

I would never have thought we'd be that high on the list - doesn't gel
with what I read in the newspapers and so on. I would bet that the
note on the bottom regarding different rates of reporting of crimes in
different countries probably means the list is not that representative
of reality, unfortunately.

I would be interested to see that list broken down into type of crime
- our pathetic justice system certainly doesn't help our figures
though - you could probably name any crime and it's associated
sentence in the US and ours would not be as tough

[Matt Whiting]

chris wrote:
> On May 29, 10:12 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
>>>> me again how great things are in the UK...
>>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>>> Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per capita:
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crim...
>>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>> Thanks, Jim, that is a much better representation. OK, Chris, your
>> turn. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> Wow, that's bizarre!
>
> I would never have thought we'd be that high on the list - doesn't gel
> with what I read in the newspapers and so on. I would bet that the
> note on the bottom regarding different rates of reporting of crimes in
> different countries probably means the list is not that representative
> of reality, unfortunately.

And I'm guessing that your perception of the US is also based on
newspaper and TV, right? I'm guessing you've never actually been here.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>
> Interesting. I have heard reports that crime rates have gone
> up considerably in the UK since they have enacted a virtual
> total gun ban.
>
Add Canada to the list as well.

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/issues/bligunreg.htm
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

"For the year 2003, per 100,000 population, Canada had 8,530 crimes, and the
U.S. 4,267. For crimes of violence, 958 vs. 523. For property crimes, 4,275
vs. 3,744."

Yes, the UK crime rate has skyrocketed and try as they might, the UK
authorities have been unable to bury their incompetence and blatent
dishonesty.

http://home.freeuk.com/minbu/crime.htm (Not a complete original)

/quote

Britain: From Bad to Worse
Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen
Thursday, March 22, 2001

During the 19th century, and most of the 20th, Britain enjoyed a
well-deserved
reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the
United
States or continental Europe. No longer. To the great consternation of
British
authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report
proclaimed
Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western
world."
Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to
Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness ... [but
now]
the U.K. has a crime problem ... worse than ours."

Not surprisingly to many observers, the violent crime rate has risen
dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted. That's a
trend
seen wherever strict gun control laws have been implemented. And that's the
part of the story British officials have tried to keep under wraps.

A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all:
"Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to
convince
the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in
a
long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level
bore
no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."

For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly
recorded
as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to
the
statistics.

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges
Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of
crime -
for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of
the
blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with
more
serious crimes.

Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being
careful
about what to count.

"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide
rates
are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman
during
an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of
problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are
eventually
dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person
homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such
differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with
British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.

Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior
officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from
criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against
abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result,
thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or
coercing
prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.

Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the
official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home
Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat
more
accurate picture began to emerge. In January 2000, official street-crime
rates
in London were more than double the official rate from the year before.

So what's a British politician to do when elections coincide with an
out-of-control crime wave? Calling for "reasonable" gun laws is no longer an
option. Handguns have been confiscated and long guns are very tightly
restricted. So anti-gun demagoguery, while still popular, can't carry the
entire load.

Conversely, the government would not find it acceptable to allow its
subjects
to possess any type of gun (even a licensed, registered .22 rifle) for home
protection. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal, and considered an
insult to the government, because it implies that the government cannot keep
the peace. Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been
repeatedly burglarized and had received no meaningful assistance from the
police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into his home. The man
was sentenced to life in prison.

The British authorities warn the public incessantly about the dangers of
following the American path on gun policy. But the Daily Telegraph (June 29,
2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in
America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without
fear
of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."

So what's the government going to do to make voters safer? One solution came
from the Home Office in April 1999 in the form of "Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders" - special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be
proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict
anyway.
Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a
particular street or premises, set a curfew, or lead to a person's eviction
from his home.

Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five
years.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to
confine people proactively, based on the fears of their potential danger to
society.

American anti-gun lobbyists have long argued that if America followed
Britain's
lead in severely restricting firearms possession and self-defense, then
American crime rates would eventually match Britain's. The lobbyists have
also
argued that if guns were restricted in America, civil liberties in the U.S.
would have the same degree of protection that they have in Britain. The
lobbyists are absolutely right.

/end


And this from WSJ-OpinionJournal in 2002 (Link is no longer active)

/quote
ACROSS THE POND

'Twasn't Ever Thus
Liberal snobbery helps make Britain the world's most crime-ridden country.

BY THEODORE DALRYMPLE
Sunday, December 22, 2002 12:01 a.m.

LONDON--Britain is now the world leader in very little, with the single
possible exception of crime.
Recent figures published by the U.N. show that Britain is now among the most
crime-ridden countries in the world. Its citizens are much more likely to be
attacked or robbed on the street, or have their houses burgled, than their
counterparts in, say, Russia or South Africa, let alone the U.S. Everyday
experience in Britain is quite sufficient to establish that we now live in a
deeply criminalized society.

/end

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:32:08 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>
>>> Can you travel to Cuba? *g*
>>>
>>
>>Oh I can't wait for my chance to visit the 'workers paradise'.
>
> but are you *FREE* to go there?
>
>>Do I like that we've had this stupic embargo with Cuba all these
>>years? No... but have I wanted to go there? No. There are many
>>other countries in the Caribbean with better facilities to visit.
>
> I agree, but still: my point stays. And you haven't said a word about what
> freedoms we're missing. Cuba was really just a (funny) sidenote.
>
> #m
> --
> I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

This may not be important to you Martin, but how about the freedom of
interstate travel without having to show papers identifying yourself? I
realize that the United States is far greater in land mass than your
country, but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a
United Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.

I'm not that familiar with your culture as you are similarly not that
familiar with mine, so I'm sure there are freedoms or rights that both of us
are overlooking.

You do happen to live in one of the more progressive nation states in
Europe, but that crap about being neutral is wearing very thin. Neutrality
is just another word for "too damn self-centered" to get involved in global
politics or to give a damn about other human beings outside your borders who
are badly treated.

I find it interesting that neutrality usually ends at your front gate.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Jose]

> but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a
> United Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.

In all fairness, Europe is made up of different =countries=. The United
States is all one country. I expect border crossing between Spain and
Portugal to be different than from Connecticut to Rhode Island.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Again, you statement shows you don't understand the self defense laws, and
> qualifications for the license.

That depends on the jurisdiction. In places like the UK, he's pretty much on
the mark. Not every jurisdiction allows you to draw and shoot every time you
feel threatened.

> Having a license and carrying a legal
> concealed weapon does not give you the right to use the weapon unless you
> have no other choice. You are still responsable for taking any and all
> reasonable avoidance options.

So the actual probability of being in a situation where you can legally use it
is extraordinarily low.

One reason why professional criminals don't routinely carry guns is that they
don't usually need them and they can get in trouble if someone finds that they
have one.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> We don't have much crime where I live either and at least every other
> person is armed according to the latest statistics I've seen.

They may be comparing guns to population, but that's a bit simplistic.

I note that most people either have no gun at all (the usual case), or they
have _lots_ of guns. So the reality is that many people are unarmed, and
those who are armed are armed to the teeth.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The fact that virtually every Swiss household has at least one firearm
> per adult male yet has a extremely low crime rate is something the
> anti-firearms people don't like to talk about.

I don't mind talking about it. The problem is that Americans are not Swiss,
and Americans are preoccupied and keenly interested in violence, whereas the
Swiss are not.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US has
> exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.

Most people driving have a license, even those who fire on police.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a United
>> Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.
>
> In all fairness, Europe is made up of different =countries=. The United
> States is all one country. I expect border crossing between Spain and
> Portugal to be different than from Connecticut to Rhode Island.
>
> Jose
> --

Jose,
that's the way you and I understood it to be since ... forever. But when
I was in Germany awhile back the political powers were all squawking about
how a United Europe was going to stand as a peer to the United States in
technology, medicine, financial power, and a load of other crap. We don't
really hear about that here in the US and maybe I just happened to be there
during a time when the topic was very "newsworthy". Nevertheless, if Europe
wants to claim its united status (as they are attempting to do with the
Euro) then let's measure them by the same yardstick.



--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

[Jose]

> Nevertheless, if Europe wants to claim its
> united status (as they are attempting to do with the
> Euro) then let's measure them by the same yardstick.

Talk is talk. It's one thing to link one's currencies together (and
after that, changing the name is only symbolic). It's quite another
thing to link one's constitutions together, and surrender one's
soveriginity. I don't see that happening. I don't even see noises in
that direction.

When you were in Germany, were the German political powers talking about
living under France's rules, or Spain's?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

"Maxwell" > wrote:
> I read them pretty fast, but didn't see any reference to the shooters
> have a hand gun license. Did I miss something, or did you
> misunderstand my use of the term licensed persons?

I assumed auto license since your statement read "...licensed person in the
US has exited his car...." Proximity of the two words mislead me so I
misunderstand your intent.

I sit corrected.

[Jim Logajan]

"Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US
>>> has exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.
>>
>> Trivially easy:
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-12-deputies-shot_x.htm
>>
>> http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2003/Release_12821.htm
>>
>
> Neither of these were done by licensed gun carriers.

Quite - as stated in another post I somehow managed to overlook the context
of the subthread and for some reason assumed "licensed" meant "licensed
driver" which, in retrospect, was a dumb mistake.

D'oh!

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Again, you statement shows you don't understand the self defense laws,
>> and
>> qualifications for the license.
>
> That depends on the jurisdiction. In places like the UK, he's pretty much
> on
> the mark. Not every jurisdiction allows you to draw and shoot every time
> you
> feel threatened.
>
>> Having a license and carrying a legal
>> concealed weapon does not give you the right to use the weapon unless you
>> have no other choice. You are still responsable for taking any and all
>> reasonable avoidance options.
>
> So the actual probability of being in a situation where you can legally
> use it
> is extraordinarily low.
>
> One reason why professional criminals don't routinely carry guns is that
> they
> don't usually need them and they can get in trouble if someone finds that
> they
> have one.

Right.

[Maxwell]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>> Find any instance were a licensed person in the US
>>>> has exited his car at a traffic stop and fired on the police.
>>>
>>> Trivially easy:
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-12-deputies-shot_x.htm
>>>
>>> http://www.lanecounty.org/News/News_2003/Release_12821.htm
>>>
>>
>> Neither of these were done by licensed gun carriers.
>
> Quite - as stated in another post I somehow managed to overlook the
> context
> of the subthread and for some reason assumed "licensed" meant "licensed
> driver" which, in retrospect, was a dumb mistake.
>

Not dumb, just simple. Conceal licensed folks are usually accepted as the
good guys by law enforcement. You have to have a pretty clear record to
obtain one. When the law passed in my state, most of the guys where I worked
were all touting they would be the first to sign up. It was a big deal. We
were all passing around the phone number for ordering the applications forms
and talking about it daily. But when the information started arriving,
clearly 1 in 3 that intended to apply found they couldn't quailify. A friend
of my was sighed for assualt 3 years earlier, for simply shoving someone in
a bar. He didn't actally hit the guy. But it disquaified him.

Others were declined over simple protective orders from past divorces, a pot
bust many years earlier, etc. You truly have to qualify with you past
record.

[Martin Hotze]

Matt Whiting schrieb:


> Are you required to use an ISP in your country of residence?


hu?


> Matt


besides, I am ISP myself (but not at my home access)

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

Jim Logajan schrieb:


> So although Martin will not volunteer his postal address on the net, he is
> hardly looking to make himself invisible.


you found my business address.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

Jim Carter schrieb:

> This may not be important to you Martin, but how about the freedom of
> interstate travel without having to show papers identifying yourself? I


what have you to do when traveling from state to state (not from AZ to
CA), but from the USA to Canada or Mexico? In different scales this
would be like tracelling from Salzburg to Tirol (both are states [with
less rights than your states; ours are more counties, IMHO]. For sure:
your nation is way bigger than ours, but we can travel in different
sovereign countries (!) without showing a passport.

> realize that the United States is far greater in land mass than your
> country, but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a
> United Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.


the European Union consists of sovereign nations.


> You do happen to live in one of the more progressive nation states in
> Europe, but that crap about being neutral is wearing very thin. Neutrality
> is just another word for "too damn self-centered" to get involved in global
> politics or to give a damn about other human beings outside your borders who
> are badly treated.
>
> I find it interesting that neutrality usually ends at your front gate.


Given our history and the development from after the end of WWII I
strongly believe that this was the only way to regain our nation.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

Jose schrieb:

>> but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a
>> United Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.
>
> In all fairness, Europe is made up of different =countries=. The United
> States is all one country. I expect border crossing between Spain and
> Portugal to be different than from Connecticut to Rhode Island.

but the good thing is that there is almost no difference.

> Jose


#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> be construed as threatening. Boxing in his car is just not a good idea.
> You should have pulled well past and then waited.

that's exactly what the officer explained. I got it now. :-)

--Sylvain

[Chris]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> chris wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>>
>>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>>
>> I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
>> where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
>> in a population of 60m.
>
> I thought you said you had such strict gun control - how did you manage 58
> killed?
>
> BTW, you might know that the manner in which the UK keeps statistics is a
> downright fraud.
>

Explain how the statistics are a fraud. Is it because you lost the argument?
Only handguns are banned in the UK. Shotguns and rifles are licenced. Air
guns are also legal.

As for Switzerland, they don't go out and murder people, they just commit
suicide at about the same rate as the US. It might be to do with the
proximity of a weapon.

Anyway, the US people kill as many in two days with firearms as are killed
with firearms in three years in the UK .

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide
Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42
(1999)

Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15
(1997)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

Japan 0.04* (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01
(1997)

(Source: Harvard Research Center)



STATISTICS ON POLICE USE OF FIREARMS 2005/2006 IN ENGLAND AND WALES

The statistics for 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 show that the number of
police operations in which firearms were authorised was 18,891.

The Police discharged a conventional firearm in 9 incidents. In addition,
the Police discharged baton rounds or AEP in 14 incidents and fired Taser in
89 incidents.

There are a total of 6584 authorised firearm officers in England and Wales.
There are 43 police forces in England and Wales comprising 140,563 full-time
equivalent police officers and a 10,988-strong special constabulary of
part-time volunteers.

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> chris wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 8:58 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>>>>> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's why our police don't kill people half as often - there's
>>>> almost no chance the guy behind the wheel has a gun, so no need to
>>>> shoot him if he comes at you???
>>> It must suck to be in your country and be defenseless against criminals.
>>
>> I have a better chance of winning the lottery than being killed by a gun
>> where I live. The UK had 58 deaths from guns in 2005/6, 25 from handguns
>> in a population of 60m.
>>
>> Using this forum's normal measure of extrapolation based on population
>> size (usually done in respect of pilot certificates etc) we might expect
>> the US death rate to be about 5 times greater at about 290 deaths in the
>> year.
>>
>> But then with guns making everyone so safe perhaps that should reduce by
>> half the number of deaths to 185.
>>
>> The US by contrast saw 29,569 people killed by gunfire in 2004, a
>> staggering 81/day. (Source: Centre for Disease Control) (sic). Certainly
>> a statistic to be proud of?
>>
>> With those odds perhaps everyone should be armed.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
> Yes, the US is a little higher than the UK, but not that far apart on the
> world scale. And the UK is quite a bit higher that Switzerland where I
> understand a rather large percentage of the population is armed. Go
> figure.
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
>
>
> And this map shows the UK as 6th in the world overall in crime rates. I'll
> admit to being surprised that the US isn't on this list.
>
> http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
>
>
> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell me
> again how great things are in the UK...
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>
>
> I lived and worked in the UK for several months. How long have you lived
> and worked in the US? Personally, I found the UK a nice place to visit,
> but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Taxed to death, regulated
> to death, etc. I guess once you become beaten down and used to servitude,
> maybe folks stop resisting. The American ethic is simply different in
> this regard.

Ditto with the US - just a bunch of wingers with every man for themselves.

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> kontiki wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>>
>> Interesting. I have heard reports that crime rates have gone
>> up considerably in the UK since they have enacted a virtual
>> total gun ban.
>>
>> This was not suprising, of coursem, since I am aware that
>> Washington DC has one of the highest crime rates of any
>> city in America and it has a total ban on firearms.
>
> Yes, this is often the case, but not always. Obviously, crime is a
> complicated issue and isn't affected by any one thing. Crime in Japan is
> relatively low also, but I read an interesting article a few years back
> concerning their police "interrogation" techniques. It explained why they
> have a very high rate of "confessions" and a low crime rate. When the
> police use tactics such as that, even innocent people confess as that is
> easier than suffering further "interrogation."

Is that why the Governor of Illinois stopped the death row because of the
number of miscarriages of justice and the risk of innocent people being
murdered by the state.

[Chris]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
>>> me again how great things are in the UK...
>>>
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>>
>> Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per
>> capita:
>>
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
>>
>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>
> Thanks, Jim, that is a much better representation. OK, Chris, your turn.
> :-)

Sure we have a lot of petty crime but on the subject violent crimes against
the person and of guns and homicides I am happy to use your statistics which
show a murder rate in the US considerably higher than the UK with a murder
rate by firearms higher by a not inconsiderable factor of 22.2 times . For
rapes the US beats us by a more modest factor of two as with drug crimes.

UK

Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 62
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people


US

Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Murders with firearms: 8,259
Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

So I don't get your point. are you really saying that the US is a
safer place for people?

[Chris]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
et...
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:32:08 GMT, kontiki wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you travel to Cuba? *g*
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh I can't wait for my chance to visit the 'workers paradise'.
>>
>> but are you *FREE* to go there?
>>
>>>Do I like that we've had this stupic embargo with Cuba all these
>>>years? No... but have I wanted to go there? No. There are many
>>>other countries in the Caribbean with better facilities to visit.
>>
>> I agree, but still: my point stays. And you haven't said a word about
>> what
>> freedoms we're missing. Cuba was really just a (funny) sidenote.
>>
>> #m
>> --
>> I am not a terrorist. <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>
>
> This may not be important to you Martin, but how about the freedom of
> interstate travel without having to show papers identifying yourself? I
> realize that the United States is far greater in land mass than your
> country, but given the tendency for the European politicos to promote a
> United Europe, I find the border crossings still quite interesting.
>
> I'm not that familiar with your culture as you are similarly not that
> familiar with mine, so I'm sure there are freedoms or rights that both of
> us are overlooking.
>
> You do happen to live in one of the more progressive nation states in
> Europe, but that crap about being neutral is wearing very thin. Neutrality
> is just another word for "too damn self-centered" to get involved in
> global politics or to give a damn about other human beings outside your
> borders who are badly treated.
>
> I find it interesting that neutrality usually ends at your front gate.

Come off it. The majority of Americans know nothing of what's going on
outside their borders -hell only about 10% have a passport. How much foreign
news is there in the average American newspaper? Naff all.

This crap about human beings being treated badly outside the borders is just
that. If there are US interests at stake like oil (Iraq) then you are
interested in human rights. If It in the US interest not to care they don't
(Chile - Pinochet). What about the human rights then.

You guys - you just kill me with the one eyed view of the world. The only
thing the US cares about is its own interests and that has been the bye word
of its foreign policy. Give us a break from the bull**** on spreading
democracy and freedom.

[Martin Hotze]

Chris schrieb:


> You guys - you just kill me with the one eyed view of the world. The only
> thing the US cares about is its own interests and that has been the bye word
> of its foreign policy.


hopefully the do care about their interests (and not mine); we only
often enough don't have enough balls to say no or to oppose and stick to
our position (we have to blame our politicians for that, not theirs).

> Give us a break from the bull**** on spreading
> democracy and freedom.

From the viewpoint of an American this is all OK and they mostly don't
understand 'our' reaction.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Same with conceal carry. I never plan to use it, or put myself in
>> harms way. But just like a spare tire, if I every need it, it's very
>> reassuring to know I am qualified and licensed to have it.
>
> Why do you want it concealed?
>

you;re an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> chris writes:
>
>> I understand that there are quite a few people in this country with
>> firearms - farmers, hunters, etc. We very very seldom hear of
>> shootings, certainly not deliberate ones.
>
> France also has quite a few people with guns, at least in rural areas
> where there is a justification for them, and yet gun violence is still
> very rare compared to the United States. Hunters carry guns when
> hunting (not at other times). Cops carry guns. Soldiers carry
> (unloaded) guns. Target shooters carry guns. But nobody else does.
>
>> I also understand other
>> countries with similar numbers of guns per capita have a much worse
>> gun problem than us, so it must be a cultural thing...
>
> Yes. In some cultures guns are familiar and accepted. In other
> cultures they are considered repulsive, and very often they simply are
> not thought of at all.
>
>> Certainly not in an airplane !!!! That's just bizarre, in my opinion
>
> A terrorist might attempt to parachute into the cockpit from above.
> Without a gun, how would you stop him?

Good grief.

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>> The US is on this list, but the UK is now 3rd in the world. So, tell
>>>> me again how great things are in the UK...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
>>> Matt, this graph provides a better view since it is normalized per
>>> capita:
>>>
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
>>>
>>> The U.K. has more crimes per capita than the U.S.!
>>> And New Zealand has the second highest rate in the world!
>> Thanks, Jim, that is a much better representation. OK, Chris, your turn.
>> :-)
>
> Sure we have a lot of petty crime but on the subject violent crimes against
> the person and of guns and homicides I am happy to use your statistics which
> show a murder rate in the US considerably higher than the UK with a murder
> rate by firearms higher by a not inconsiderable factor of 22.2 times . For
> rapes the US beats us by a more modest factor of two as with drug crimes.
>
> UK
>
> Murders (per capita): 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
> Murders with firearms: 62
> Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
>
>
> US
>
> Murders (per capita): 0.042802 per 1,000 people
> Murders with firearms: 8,259
> Murders with firearms (per capita): 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
>
> So I don't get your point. are you really saying that the US is a
> safer place for people?

It is safer for me as I'm armed.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Chris wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>> I lived and worked in the UK for several months. How long have you lived
>> and worked in the US? Personally, I found the UK a nice place to visit,
>> but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Taxed to death, regulated
>> to death, etc. I guess once you become beaten down and used to servitude,
>> maybe folks stop resisting. The American ethic is simply different in
>> this regard.
>
> Ditto with the US - just a bunch of wingers with every man for themselves.

You dodged the question. How much time have you spent in the US?

Ah, you DID answer ... the answer is no time at all. Now we understand
your ignorance.

Matt

[Dallas]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:03:36 +0100, Chris wrote:

> If there are US interests at stake like oil (Iraq)

Yeah... like Americans are running the Iraqi oil fields and pumping the
oil from them directly on to American tankers bound for the USA.

I wish we were stealing Iraqi oil, just to get something back for the half
trillion dollars we borrowed from China to spend on this war.

--
Dallas

[NW_Pilot]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:03:36 +0100, Chris wrote:
>
>> If there are US interests at stake like oil (Iraq)
>
> Yeah... like Americans are running the Iraqi oil fields and pumping the
> oil from them directly on to American tankers bound for the USA.
>
> I wish we were stealing Iraqi oil, just to get something back for the half
> trillion dollars we borrowed from China to spend on this war.
>
> --
> Dallas

And when our goverment don't pay China back they are going to Invade us!!!!!

[Jim Logajan]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote:
> And when our goverment don't pay China back they are going to Invade
> us!!!!!

I'm prepared for that. We had Chinese stir fry for dinner.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:03:36 +0100, Chris wrote:
>
>> If there are US interests at stake like oil (Iraq)
>
> Yeah... like Americans are running the Iraqi oil fields and pumping the
> oil from them directly on to American tankers bound for the USA.
>
> I wish we were stealing Iraqi oil, just to get something back for the half
> trillion dollars we borrowed from China to spend on this war.
>

I thought our borrowing was for the welfae state, not Art. 1, Sec. 8
expenses (11% of the Federal Budget)?

[Blueskies]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message .. .
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 20:03:36 +0100, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> If there are US interests at stake like oil (Iraq)
>>
>> Yeah... like Americans are running the Iraqi oil fields and pumping the
>> oil from them directly on to American tankers bound for the USA.
>>
>> I wish we were stealing Iraqi oil, just to get something back for the half
>> trillion dollars we borrowed from China to spend on this war.
>>
>> --
>> Dallas
>
> And when our goverment don't pay China back they are going to Invade us!!!!!
>

Actually, I think they will just not sell us any more cheap tools so we will not be able to finish building our
planes...


(aviation content, what a concept!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> Actually, I think they will just not sell us any more cheap tools so we will
> not be able to finish building our
> planes...

You want to build an airplane with cheap tools?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash (hmm..
sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.
That's what this ridiculous adventure in Iraq is all about.
One purpose is to make a small cadre of goons a SHYTELOAD of cash.
Another is to control oil reserves in the region as leverage against emerging
European and Chinese commercial markets.
The first task is to confuse and distract the populace with increasingly
meaningless drivel/propaganda called "News". You know, the crap they stick
between TV commercials.
Next, consolidate print media into the hands of another small cadre of goons
to hamfist occasional threads of truth into spin that looks like an Orwellian
acid trip.

Then package a proposition for illegal invasion in a simple package fit for a
sheep's sensorium, wrap tightly in the word "Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism"
(and repeat ad nauseum), execute proposed invasion against basic sense and
many international laws/treaties.


Stir vigorously.

pour into a chilled glass and enjoy.


gaaah...stop me before I get carried away.



Jose wrote:

>
>Talk is talk. It's one thing to link one's currencies together (and
>after that, changing the name is only symbolic). It's quite another
>thing to link one's constitutions together, and surrender one's
>soveriginity. I don't see that happening. I don't even see noises in
>that direction.
>

>
>Jose

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

wrote:
>$1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
>scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
>NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
>May 19, 2007:
>
>
>Vic
BTW, Vic.
I use eBay regularly and will keep an eye out.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:72f91985c47f7@uwe...
> Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash (hmm..
> sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.

They always were. Adam Smith made many points about it 230 years ago.

[[email protected]]

On May 30, 8:16 pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> wrote:
> >$1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
> >scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
> >NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
> >May 19, 2007:
>
> >Vic
>
> BTW, Vic.
> I use eBay regularly and will keep an eye out.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.comhttp://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

You are very kind and consideratge. And I thank you.

My son is showing me how to post the letter I wote in RAH:
On May 27, 11:31 am, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:
> I'm in for twenty under the same conditions as dub.
>
> Jim
>
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 10:03 am, wrote:
> >> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
> >> scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
> >> NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
> >> May 19, 2007:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---------------------
>
> > I'll kick in a twenty... subject to the conviction AND incarceration
> > of the thief. (This slap-on-the-hand, suspended-sentence bull**** is
> > a virtual guarantee the guy(s) will do it again.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks everbody.

Deputies caught someone trying to fence a set of Bose headsets and
Garmin 295 taken at the airport. Deputy also says they have found my
Garmin 195. Several serch warrants have already been used.
It looks like the thieves were homeboys.

If this pan's out it will be the first time in my life of over 50
years when anything stolen was recovered. I had a car stolen, two
motorcycles, several housebreakings, and plenty of cars broken into
and nobody ever caught and nothing ever returned. I quit driving
convertibles because of the tops getting cut up by car burglers. And
no insureance neither. Am sure most everybody else has been hurt by
thieves. This one gave me a real hartburn that will still burns years
later.

Some time ago two big twin Harly Davidson motorcycles were stolen in a
break-in. ONe of them was mine. It was almost new. License and
thieft division of the Florida Burau of Investigation found one of the
bikes at a Daytona bike show. The numbers had been altared but they
found secrit vehicle identifiction numbers.

They had these thieves caught dead to rights and didn't even arrest
them. They found out the bikes had been taken by a gang in West
Virgina they had connections to one of the mechanics who worked at the
shop where the bikes were stolen.. The person who the bike was stole
form in Daytona came back with a treller with a fake bill of sale and
took it back to West Virginia. His only problem was they wouldn't
issue a tag to him. Nobody was ever brought to justice. There's
severl people who ought to have a bullet in there head but got off
scott free.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>> Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash (hmm..
>> sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.
>
>They always were. Adam Smith made many points about it 230 years ago.

Yep, bears repeating, I say.

Good news about the partial property recoveries. Here's to a successful
execution o' them warrants.

Good luck, Vic.

I'm 10-10 un da side.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:73040b5d0bca5@uwe:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash
>>> (hmm.. sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.
>>
>>They always were. Adam Smith made many points about it 230 years ago.
>
> Yep, bears repeating, I say.
>
> Good news about the partial property recoveries. Here's to a
> successful execution o' them warrants.
>
> Good luck, Vic.
>
> I'm 10-10 un da side.
>

Hey, you use that Hip Hop lingo on the RT?


Would explaiiin a looooot.


Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash
>>>> (hmm.. sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.
>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>> I'm 10-10 un da side.
>
>Hey, you use that Hip Hop lingo on the RT?
>
>Would explaiiin a looooot.
>
>Bertie


Do you use all those extra letters on the RT?


Or stop slobbering on your keyboard it's making the keys stick.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7311a2b9d0b82@uwe:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Sovereignty- sch'movereignty. The only sovereignty anymore is cash
>>>>> (hmm.. sovereigns). Political borders are increasingly illusions.
>>[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>>
>>> I'm 10-10 un da side.
>>
>>Hey, you use that Hip Hop lingo on the RT?
>>
>>Would explaiiin a looooot.
>>
>>Bertie
>
>
> Do you use all those extra letters on the RT?
>
>
> Or stop slobbering on your keyboard it's making the keys stick.

Aww, wassamatta, little wannabe boi? Huwt your widdle feelings?



Of course, even if I did use all those extra letters on the RT, you prolly
still wouldn't understand.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
> scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
> NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
> May 19, 2007:
>


On May 25, 1:03 pm, wrote:
> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
>

Two thieves were caught and all the guns but just a fraction of the
tools were returned. The fence seems to have brought back the tools
he felt were worth the $200 he paid and kept the rest. Other words,
if someone buy $3,000 worth of Snap-Ons for $200 it would be hard to
say later he did not know they were hot.

The detective who solved this case has made a big reputation for
himself. He has solved big crimes, right and left. His name is Jeff
Hamrick and he is becoming famous in these parts for digging in his
heels and not letting up.

All the avionics, mostly Garmin, King, and Bose headsets were returned
to their owners too.

The thieves are in jail awaiting trial under $100,000 bonds. They are
local to Rutherford County, in their late 20's and had no criminal
records.

Investigation is still open because of a number of fences and a string
of about 20 burglaries. And we understand another warrant for arrest
is outstanding. There is also official talk that someone on our
airport supplied information.

Watch your security, men, and record all those serial numbers. Serial
numbers helped us out. So did very accurate descriptions of the
property taken.

I would have killed just for that beautiful gold-triggered Browning .
22 target pistol that goes back to my boyhood. And now I'm proud to
say it's back home again.

Thanks to all of your for your support and special thanks to those
good-hearted souls Veedubber and Jim Weir who offered to add to the
reward.

[Dan Luke]

Yay!

One for the good guys.

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On May 25, 12:55 pm, wrote:
>> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
>> scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
>> NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
>> May 19, 2007:
>>
>
>
> On May 25, 1:03 pm, wrote:
>> $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
>>
>
> Two thieves were caught and all the guns but just a fraction of the
> tools were returned. The fence seems to have brought back the tools
> he felt were worth the $200 he paid and kept the rest. Other words,
> if someone buy $3,000 worth of Snap-Ons for $200 it would be hard to
> say later he did not know they were hot.
>
> The detective who solved this case has made a big reputation for
> himself. He has solved big crimes, right and left. His name is Jeff
> Hamrick and he is becoming famous in these parts for digging in his
> heels and not letting up.
>
> All the avionics, mostly Garmin, King, and Bose headsets were returned
> to their owners too.
>
> The thieves are in jail awaiting trial under $100,000 bonds. They are
> local to Rutherford County, in their late 20's and had no criminal
> records.
>
> Investigation is still open because of a number of fences and a string
> of about 20 burglaries. And we understand another warrant for arrest
> is outstanding. There is also official talk that someone on our
> airport supplied information.
>
> Watch your security, men, and record all those serial numbers. Serial
> numbers helped us out. So did very accurate descriptions of the
> property taken.
>
> I would have killed just for that beautiful gold-triggered Browning .
> 22 target pistol that goes back to my boyhood. And now I'm proud to
> say it's back home again.
>
> Thanks to all of your for your support and special thanks to those
> good-hearted souls Veedubber and Jim Weir who offered to add to the
> reward.
>
>

Congratulations! It sounds like you got a great detective to work your
case. Good luck on getting the rest and now find a better place to
store your valuables! :-)

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 7:26 am, wrote:
> On May 25, 12:55 pm, wrote:
>
> > $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
> > scum thieves who broke into hangars and aircraft at Rutherford County,
> > NC Airport [KFQD] and stole the following items on or about Thursday,
> > May 19, 2007:
>
> On May 25, 1:03 pm, wrote:
>
> > $1500 cash reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of lowlife
>
> Two thieves were caught and all the guns but just a fraction of the
> tools were returned. The fence seems to have brought back the tools
> he felt were worth the $200 he paid and kept the rest. Other words,
> if someone buy $3,000 worth of Snap-Ons for $200 it would be hard to
> say later he did not know they were hot.
>
> The detective who solved this case has made a big reputation for
> himself. He has solved big crimes, right and left. His name is Jeff
> Hamrick and he is becoming famous in these parts for digging in his
> heels and not letting up.
>
> All the avionics, mostly Garmin, King, and Bose headsets were returned
> to their owners too.
>
> The thieves are in jail awaiting trial under $100,000 bonds. They are
> local to Rutherford County, in their late 20's and had no criminal
> records.
>
> Investigation is still open because of a number of fences and a string
> of about 20 burglaries. And we understand another warrant for arrest
> is outstanding. There is also official talk that someone on our
> airport supplied information.
>
> Watch your security, men, and record all those serial numbers. Serial
> numbers helped us out. So did very accurate descriptions of the
> property taken.
>
> I would have killed just for that beautiful gold-triggered Browning .
> 22 target pistol that goes back to my boyhood. And now I'm proud to
> say it's back home again.
>
> Thanks to all of your for your support and special thanks to those
> good-hearted souls Veedubber and Jim Weir who offered to add to the
> reward.

Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
pounding prison...

[RST Engineering]

I hope you aren't talking about Bob and I ... naaah, YOUNG doesn't apply to
either of us {;-)

BTW, could'ja just snippety doo-dah a bit when responding? Thanks ...


Jim

--
"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and
dance like no one is watching."
--Satchel Paige



> wrote in message
oups.com...

>> Thanks to all of your for your support and special thanks to those
>> good-hearted souls Veedubber and Jim Weir who offered to add to the
>> reward.
>
> Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
> pounding prison...
>

[john smith[_2_]]

In article om>,
wrote:

> There is also official talk that someone on our
> airport supplied information.

Now that, is disturbing information.

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> There is also official talk that someone on our
>> airport supplied information.
>
> Now that, is disturbing information.

I (and others, I think) called that fact, in advance.

Disturbing indeed.

I hope the DA takes "accessory to a crime" laws into account, and gives that
(those) perps full punishment under the law.

Airport watch systems break down, when the fox is in the henhouse, before it
is locked.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:36 -0000, wrote in
. com>:

>Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
>pounding prison...

So, in your mind the just punishment for burglary is anal rape?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:36 -0000, wrote in
> . com>:
>
>>Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
>>pounding prison...
>
> So, in your mind the just punishment for burglary is anal rape?
>

Apparently it is in your's.


Bertie

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:36 -0000, wrote in
> . com>:
>
>> Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
>> pounding prison...
>
> So, in your mind the just punishment for burglary is anal rape?


Works for me. If they don't want to get punished, they shouldn't do the crime.
I have zero empathy for the perps.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:22:36 -0000, wrote in
> . com>:
>
>> Well, now these young men get to find out what its like in an ass-
>> pounding prison...
>
> So, in your mind the just punishment for burglary is anal rape?
>

That is pretty mild, but better than nothing. I prefer cutting off a
finger or two or maybe an entire hand for serious cases.

Matt