gun discharge in cockpit.

Dan wrote in news:1da6277d-a237-4865-8e00-
:

On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?

You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole
gun/global
warming thing.

Bertie

An ignoramus can state that 2+2=4.


But he won't know what it means.


And 2+2 doesn't always equal 4






I think he's still just poasting individual numbers at this stage. maybe
he'll eventually reach to sums. Doing the musical scale was impressive,
though. I guess he used his Fisher Price Xylaphone.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
is
no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
unquestionably responsible for the staggering murder rate which is
unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys and the NRA
are
so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you should be
supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing them.

Bertie

Then why is it that the cities in the US with the harshest gun laws
also have the highest rate of violent crimes that use guns?


Spurious and you know it.


Bertie


In no way is it spurious and YOU know it.


OK, I'll concede that it is spurious and you apparently don't know it.


Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in
news:9ddb6320-8ec5-4080-9eee-3948538a9e98@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 31, 5:22 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

But it does define death. The wold is a more violent place almost
everywhere these days. Lots of things are contributing, but there
is no question about it, the availability of guns in the US is
--
unquestionably -- responsible for the staggering murder rate
which is unequalled amongst "first world" nations. If you guys
and
the NRA are so interesed in responsible gun wonership, then you
should be supporting restrictions on ownership, not opposing
them.

Bertie
That statement is absolutely, positively, and profoundly false.

There are many countries with gun ownership rates similar to or
higher than the US, yet those have very low murder rates. The
reverse is also true.

Finland, Switzerland, and New Zealand have virtually identical gun
ownership rates to the US, and yet their murder rates are
significantly lower than those of surrounding countries.

That's because everyone in Switzerland and Finland are military
reserve. They don't own the guns, the state does.
There's no evidence that murder rates are higher in those
countries
with higher levels of gun ownership. The only way to show such
relationships is cherry picking a few countries to make the
comparison.

Israel, with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, has a
murder rate 40% below Canada's.
Again, the military.....

So if the gun in my house were owned by the government instead of me
it would some how know that and not allow itself to shoot someone it
wasn't supposed to?

Really, how's that work?


Well, in Switzerland and Finland, the two examples you gave, military
service is mandatory. A year, or two, can't remember which. ( I know
several Swiss well and get to Helsinki fairly often so I can ask when
I;m there) When you get out, you are on reserve for life. The gun
laws
in both places are much stricter than anything proposed in the US,
BTW...

They don't buy guns as toys, they have them as part of a national
defense plan.

And your argument is bull**** and you know it.


Bertie


USAian firearms are part of our national defense plan as well. (See
2nd
Amendment to the Constitution)


No, they aren't. That's not a plan. Apples and oranges.
Everyone, and that is Everyone, who has a gun in those countries has had
military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in the
US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else, it
would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.


Bertie

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
m:

Flydive wrote:

So, by this you mean that is not guns that are dangerous, but the
American population? Well then maybe it would be a good idea to ban
guns over there........
Unfortunately yes it is the American population that is the problem.
And we've tried gun localized gun bans and they don't work. These
people that break the law have a bad habit of ignoring gun laws as
well.



As do the people that sell them to them as well as the distrubitors
and manufacturers.



Bertie

Bertie, I know you like to take a knee jerk position on just about any
issue that comes up but please don't just repeat back the the
anti-firearms propaganda that was only thought up as a way of using
the tort laws as a way of attacking the US firearms industry. It is
beneath you.


I'm not. I'm saying what I think. I'm saying what I see as a fact. The
fact is, armorours are the same as any other industry, They dont give a
****. Aside,perhaps, from some li'l old gun maker who does it as a
family tradition and/or for the sake of the art, the rest are looking
after their bottom line. If they regret a death due to a gun, it's only
because there's one less sucker to sell one too.



Bertie

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:


Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure and


Sig 229s are P rated.

Dan, do you comprehend "legacy" guns?

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 11:56 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

On Apr 1, 10:48 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Also, there is no technical reason the 9mm couldn't have been beefed
up
to near .45 specs. The .38 Super +P almost does it. The problem was
the
legacy 9mm guns out there that couldn't deal with the added pressure
and


Well you keep saying that but then why come out with +P ammo if it isn't
going to help?

Because you said that 9mm's can't handle the P charge.

Most of the current crop of quality 9mm's can handle +P, IF that's
something the shooter thinks is important.

I think all this talk about "power factor" ad naseum is blather - only
ONE factor counts in handguns -- shot placement.


Dan! He said LEGACY handguns.

Do you know what a LEGACY handgun is? It's not just the Sig 229.

On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote in news:1da6277d-a237-4865-8e00-
:



On Mar 31, 10:42 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Which borough or NY City are you from, ignoramus?

You oughta be nier to him. He's on your side with the whole
gun/global
warming thing.

Bertie

An ignoramus can state that 2+2=4.

But he won't know what it means.

And 2+2 doesn't always equal 4



I think he's still just poasting individual numbers at this stage. maybe
he'll eventually reach to sums. Doing the musical scale was impressive,
though. I guess he used his Fisher Price Xylaphone.

Most likely.

On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in the
US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else, it
would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.

Bertie

I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one is
the enrollment lists.

But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would be
a Very good thing.

Dan Mc

On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


Sig 229s are P rated.

Dan, do you comprehend "legacy" guns?


Such as?

It's apples and oranges. The "legacy" .45s couldn't handle +P ammo,
either.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I've stated my reasoning and
opinions on the matter quite clearly.

Dan Mc

Dan wrote in news:b6b08de4-b5ad-412f-b8f7-
:

On Apr 1, 4:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

military training in their use. There is no compulsory equivelant in
the
US. Now that would make a huge difference. Aside form anything else,
it
would change the way they are viewed, which would, I would think,
eliminate the lion's share of gun deaths in the US.

Bertie

I would be in favor of mandatory training, but the rub on that one is
the enrollment lists.

But I agree some type compulsory training prior to ownership would be
a Very good thing.


Couldn't hurt. At the very least accidental killings of third parites in
drive-bys might drop a bit if a bit of craft were involved. #hell they
make you take a test to drive.... except maybe in Boston.


Bertie