allowing guns in cockpits

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-
:

On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim wrote:

homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
5.6....very polite

Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?

Yes,


More
people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.


Yeh, that's right.


Are
you propsing to outlaw those items or are we still talking about guns?


Spurious.

Learn how to read.,


Bertie

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-
:

On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim wrote:

homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
5.6....very polite

Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?

Yes,

More

people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.

Yeh, that's right.

well at least you recognize that guns are not the issue. Still not
clear why you believe reducing guns might solve a problem though in
which guns are not the issue.

-Robert

On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are destroyed
and if

any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
towards

this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..

If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it you
would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe that
this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of killing *her
if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball bats
kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right to own a
firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a hammer?

He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.

Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy a
gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if he
did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or an
idiot.

-Robert

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You aren't debating, you're jerking off.

Your anger has taken hostage your logic. Now you can't even put
together a reasonable argument. Of course if you throw out logic and
run on raw emotion you can make the argument to ban guns, dogs, PC,
etc.

-Robert

On Jan 9, 10:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
:

On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote
innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
@news.supernews.com:

Be able to defend himself.

I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought better
of it, then and provided her with some good alternatives that will
be much more effective on the day.

So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend myself
and my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical liberal
argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be allowed to own
one".

So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?

"...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed"

Out of context, illiterate boi.

I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
any other law abiding citizen.

You do if I decide you are a threat .

That was what the constitutional founders feared most.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:1ed36d0a-a5ce-4116-8d55-

:

On Jan 9, 7:54*am, tim wrote:

homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants UK = 2.03 and US
5.6....very polite

Do you think having less guns would change that significantly?

Yes,

More

people in the U.S. are killed with knives and bats than in the UK.

Yeh, that's right.

well at least you recognize that guns are not the issue. Still not
clear why you believe reducing guns might solve a problem though in
which guns are not the issue.


Probably because you can't read.


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 10:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:fe98ef57-0503-429f-ad6f-4
:





On Jan 9, 10:31*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

This was a real person, she;s dead, Her parents lives are
destroyed and if

any post was an argument against guns it's your appalling attitude
towards

this, one of the most played out scenes in modern america..

If you had actually read my post rather than just reacting to it
you would have realized that I said it was pure fantasy to believe
that this guy would have given her a kiss goodnight instead of
killing *her

if he had not had access to a gun. Hammers kill people, baseball
bats kill people, where do you stop? How does preventing my right
to own a firearm prevent someone else from killing his GF with a
hammer?

He shot at the BF and killed her, fjukkwit.

Your ability to avoid the issue shows how well you've thought this
out. There are other ways to kill someone other than to legally buy a
gun. If you honestly believe that we would not have killed her if he
did not have access to a legal gun you are either delusional or an
idiot.


Yeah, right. We're back to the you can't read thing again.


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:2a94ef5b-5f5f-4396-97b2-
:

On Jan 9, 11:03*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You aren't debating, you're jerking off.

Your anger has taken hostage your logic. Now you can't even put
together a reasonable argument. Of course if you throw out logic and
run on raw emotion you can make the argument to ban guns, dogs, PC,
etc.


I put forth a perfectly reasonable argument.


You didn't read it.


Bertie

On Jan 9, 10:50*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote :





On Jan 9, 10:23*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:9c147a38-17b3-4003-b879-

:

On Jan 9, 6:36*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, actually, the more immediate concerns are the likelyhood of
a pilot actually stopping a trained soldier with a gun.

Yea, I guess it seems different when you take the argument to the
ridicules extreme.

It isn't a ridiculous extreme. It's the likely scenario in the event
of an

organised hijacking.

So you believe that the ridiculous buffoons who hijacked the planes on
9/11/01 would not have been stopped by anything less than highly
trained military soldiers??

Nope.

*These guys had box cutters. The only way

they were able to succeed is because we guaranteed them an environment
in which they would encounter minimum resistance.

Yep, that's right. that was our training then. It was thought
appropriate for the safety of the aircaft.
We have different training now. It doesnt involve guns. The vast
majority of pilots realise they are not the answer.

But hey, why am I wasting time writing?

You can't read.

Gee, you caught me. I never learned to read. Its interesting how
someone like me can put together a reasonable, logical possition and
someone like you can read it and not be able to respond with logic or
reason and then believe you are in the right because you have more
emotional investment in the issue.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 9, 10:55*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:d2f44a9e-5e42-4c54-8686-a
:





On Jan 9, 10:28*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote
innews:ce584f60-334f-4485-9905-b
:

On Jan 9, 9:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote
innews:13oa1fbo5s0erbd
@news.supernews.com:

Be able to defend himself.

I taught my wife to use the gun for self defence. Thought
better of it, then and provided her with some good alternatives
that will be much more effective on the day.

So that is your argument for taking away my right to defend
myself and my family in the way I feel is best???? Its a typical
liberal argument, "I don't want an SUV so no one should be
allowed to own one".

So, if you wanted a howitzer you should be allowed to have one?

"...The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed"

Out of context, illiterate boi.

I don't need to justify my desire to defend myself to you, nor does
any other law abiding citizen.

You do if I decide you are a threat .

That was what the constitutional founders feared most.


And they were right. But you obviously haven;t read the constitution
either.

Also, you're making presumptions about me which, even if you could read,
would render the whole argument more absurd than you could imagine.

Well, make that "tha someone who could read and actually posessed an
imagination" could imagine.


Bertie