In article .com,
wrote:

And that's why the good folks ought to have access to the tools to
defend themselves. Doesn't do much good to call 911 when the shots
are being fired. The police typically arrive after the shooting is
over with and then try and figure out the who/what/why/where stuff.

We could start with the most important tool of all... our
brains. Sadly, it's easier to just mouth the same bs about our
"Constitutional right" to own a gun.

--
Capt. JG

Brains didn't help the victims much in this case. Capt JG, if one of
your family members had been in the classroom and there was another
student or teacher there with the ability to engage this murderer,
would you want them to or not? Whether it's a constitutional right or
not, the right of self defense is often recognized as a natural right
and a right not given by the constitution but recognized and preserved
by the constitution.

The brians of the victims weren't the brains I was speaking about. We
need to have stricter control over the access to weapons. If you don't
have easy access, you don't have to have a gun to defend yourself.

It's easy to make it a personal case, and if my family or I were in
jeapordy, of course, I'd want to be able to defend myself, but society
does not benefit from easy access.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote:

Brains didn't help the victims much in this case. Capt JG, if one of
your family members had been in the classroom and there was another
student or teacher there with the ability to engage this murderer,

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be alright for everyone, students and teachers included, in
a school, to be carrying guns?

This is utter madness.

In article , the_bmac wrote:
wrote:

Brains didn't help the victims much in this case. Capt JG, if one of
your family members had been in the classroom and there was another
student or teacher there with the ability to engage this murderer,

Are you seriously suggesting that it would be alright for everyone, students and teachers included, in
a school, to be carrying guns?

This is utter madness.

This is what makes America great. That and cheeseburgers of course.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Rick B. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0400, Peter Hendra
wrote:

I know that this is off topic but it is very saddening to hear of yet
another mass killing in America.

If the 33 dead people had not been following the VTI policy of not
allowing handguns on campus, less of them would be dead. It is not
illegal to have a handgun in Virginia, but school policy forbade them
on campus. Too bad, one person ignores the policy and 33 following it
are dead.

Life is too short to follow stupid rules.

Right on. I always bring my bazooka when I go sailing, especially on
paid charters. If the CG gets too close (or any other vessel), I
brandish it. To hell with the stupid rules.

FYI, I was talking about bubblegum. g


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

* Rick B. wrote, On 4/17/2007 2:45 PM:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0400, Peter Hendra
wrote:

I know that this is off topic but it is very saddening to hear of yet
another mass killing in America.

If the 33 dead people had not been following the VTI policy of not
allowing handguns on campus, less of them would be dead. It is not
illegal to have a handgun in Virginia, but school policy forbade them
on campus. Too bad, one person ignores the policy and 33 following it
are dead.

Life is too short to follow stupid rules.

The real question is, if all campuses allowed handguns at all times,
would there be more or less killing? I know some here believe, as my
swat team friend says, "An armed society is a polite society," but
have have serious doubts that this would really work with kids. I
certainly wouldn't let my kid go to a campus if I thought a
significant number of the students were packing.

BTW, my policeman friend is not against moderate gun control, as a way
of limiting the number and type of weapons out there. But he says
that the strict laws here in Boston don't prevent gangs from simply
taking a road trip to VA and NC anytime they want to replenish their
arsenal.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 17, 9:53 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Peter Hendra" wrote in message

... I know that this
is off topic but it is very saddening to hear of yet
another mass killing in America.

snipp

It takes a real piece of **** to use the death of so many young
people
and to have as their primary concern, not sympathy or a word of
understanding and support for the survivors and loved ones of the
deceased, but pushing a socialist political agenda.

You disgust me as much as the gunman disgusts me.

Wilbur Hubbard

Peter writes a thoughtful post with compassion and understanding,
illustrates with specific examples of what he sees as wrong in our
gun-happy society, gives suggestions on how we can curb violence in
the US, and backs up his claims with compelling evidence of how strict
gun control laws greatly reduce violence in other countries. In
response Wilbur calls Peter "a real piece of ****" and doesn't even
try to refute his statements. Wilbur, you have just exposed yourself
as a total asshole. Now maybe Peter realizes what we are up against
in this country.

Steve Foy


You don't get it either. How crass, how callous, how obscene is the fact
that certain people use a murderous rampage where real people die.
Innocent college students and at least one professor, if the reports are
accurate. Where is Peter's sense of pity, understanding and sympathy for
those who died so tragically and those survivors who are mourning their
loss? Peter has none. Peter could care less about the victims. Instead,
Peter, like any other socialists only sees an opportunity to advance his
political agenda on the backs of the victims. He uses the dead to
further his agenda. That's sick, disgusting, sub-human and inexcusable.
Peter is a piece of **** and you are just another pile of crap yourself
to support his sordid behavior.

Peter said he wanted to express his sadness. Peter is a liar. He spent
no time at all expressing his sadness. But, he did spend all his time
pushing a socialist political agenda.

Peter wrote: "I had thought of making a quip about yet another
"Christian terrorist" but the thought of the parents, siblings,
grandparents and friends unconsolable grief at this time would make it
too flippant and in poor taste." Yet, Peter doesn't seem to think it's
in poor taste to use the recently murdered to advance his political
agenda. If a joke about religious terrorism is an affront, I have to
wonder why seriousness about a political agenda isn't also an affront
under these circumstances. Any way you look at it Peter is scum. Any way
you look at it, other liberals who don't get this point are also scum.
Maybe one of your loved ones will get murdered by some insane person one
of these days. I hope a bunch of liberals jump on the fact of that
innocent death to further their agenda. Give you some of your own
medicine. See how you like having the value of your loved one's life
diminished by using it to further some political agenda.

As for you,Steve, go **** yourself, too.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard

Boston eh?

You got a killing every other day in the Black neighborhoods of Boston.
Recently, one Black girl was shot in the middle of the day.

Ever see any of the yachtsman here post about that? Nope,, can't be
bothered.

The whole gun thing is so nutty it is hard to even discuss it. I don't own
a gun. But a friend of mine is an advid gun owner and hunter.
He is without a doubt the most environmentally aware person I know. He
cares about the earth, the air, the wild animals.

Yet the "experts" here are calling him a nazi.

Isn't there a law in Florida that if someone uses a gun while doing a crime,
it is automatically a 10 year prison sentence? I probably have that wrong
but it is something like that.

That law should be made Federal. If you use a gun to commit a crime, 10
years; no ifs, ands, buts, plea deals, nothing.

And ,, if you are caught selling a gun illegally ... 15 years behind
bars.. no ands, ifs, buts, plea deals, nothing.

When the crime and punishment is tough, the criminals will get the message..
and that means the guy who would sell a gun.

Ask yourself :: would you sell a gun to someone if you knew that you will
go to jail if that person goes across the street to the police station and
says "he sold me this gun" and you are going away for 15 years. No plea
deal.. You are GONE.


"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Rick B. wrote, On 4/17/2007 2:45 PM:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0400, Peter Hendra
wrote:

I know that this is off topic but it is very saddening to hear of yet
another mass killing in America.

If the 33 dead people had not been following the VTI policy of not
allowing handguns on campus, less of them would be dead. It is not
illegal to have a handgun in Virginia, but school policy forbade them
on campus. Too bad, one person ignores the policy and 33 following it
are dead. Life is too short to follow stupid rules.

The real question is, if all campuses allowed handguns at all times, would
there be more or less killing? I know some here believe, as my swat team
friend says, "An armed society is a polite society," but have have serious
doubts that this would really work with kids. I certainly wouldn't let my
kid go to a campus if I thought a significant number of the students were
packing.

BTW, my policeman friend is not against moderate gun control, as a way of
limiting the number and type of weapons out there. But he says that the
strict laws here in Boston don't prevent gangs from simply taking a road
trip to VA and NC anytime they want to replenish their arsenal.

Hi Peter,

I'm not Wilbur, but...

Peter Hendra wrote:
I know that this is off topic but it is very saddening to hear of yet
another mass killing in America.

I had thought of making a quip about yet another "Christian terrorist"
but the thought of the parents, siblings, grandparents and friends
unconsolable grief at this time would make it too flippant and in poor
taste.

Well, the news this morning is saying that the
shooter was a Korean foreign student. If this is
true, he may or may not have been "Christian", but
he could _not_ legally posses a firearm.

The US Federal Firearms act of 1968 states clearly:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or
otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to
any person knowing or having reasonable cause to
believe that such person:

(5) who, being an alien:
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the
United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection
(y)(2), has been admitted to the United States
under a nonimmigrant visa.

If you would like to take a look at our federal
gun laws, they are he

http://www.nraila.org/federalfirearms.htm#Sec.%20926

Wilbur, and those others of you who support your "constitutional right
to bear arms" consider this as an example of why you should not make
owning hand guns so easy.

It may have been easy, but it was not legal in
this case.

I could have bought any weapon during my 5 day sojourn in Florida
recently. A friendly policeman with whom I was having coffee - real
coffee - Cuban, not that brown dishwater that poses as coffee that
Americans seem to prefer, explained that after three days of making an
application I could walk out of a store with any type of weapon I
desired, even an M-16 which is standard issue to Malaysian Customs.
Why a citizen would want such a weapon is beyond me. They are not a
hunting rifle. They are an offensive, not defensive weapon for killing
people.

The policeman you spoke with was mistaken. As an
alien (non-citizen) on a non-immigrant visa
legally in the USA you are _not_ permitted to
purchase or possess a firearm, and it is illegal
for anyone to sell or give it to you. This would
have been discovered either at the check-out
counter, or during the 3-day waiting period.

Also, you could not have bought an M-16 in 5 days
even if you had been a US citizen. The M16 is a
fully automatic firearm, which falls under the
jurisdiction of the National Firearms Act (NFA).
In many states of the US, fully automatic weapons
are completely outlawed, and no one but the police
and miltary may possess them. In the few states
where it is legal to possess them, you must obtain
a federal NFA license which requires you to be
fingerprinted and get the head of your local law
enforcement agency to recommend you in writing.
After that there is a thorough background check
similar to getting a "Top Secret" clearance.

In New Zealand, it is illegal and virtually impossible for anyone to
possess a hand gun. The police do not even carry weapons. Most do not
even bother to carry their batons. They have access to them when
required as well as training in their use, but the armed offenders
squads seldom shoot to kill; they usually disable the offender by
shooting the legs. Don't think that we don't have violent crime and
robberies in God's Own, we do. It's just that the criminals generally
don't have access to handguns. If procuring one was as easy as in the
U.S., then no doubt the situation would be diferent. We also have a
law that makes it an imprisonable offence (at the worst) if a citizen
does not go to the aid of a policeman who requests it or who fails to
help if they see a policeman in trouble. Our police are also well
trained in unarmed defence.

In Mexico, on the southern boarder of the US, it
is illegal for anyone except the police and
military to possess firearms or ammunition. Yet,
they have a large amount of gun crime just like
the US. Laws do not keep criminals from doing
what they want to do. It is the criminal mindset
that they do not care what the laws are.

If you think that we could keep guns out by making
them illegal, take a look at our attempts to keep
out illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine, heroin,
etc. These drugs are highly illegal, with
draconian penaltys just short of execution imposed
on those caught importing or dealing them (40+
year mandatory prison sentences, and confiscation
of all your possessions etc.) yet they are
everywhere, and easily obtainable.

At 16 I acquired a licence to own a rifle which I used to hunt deer,
pigs and goats in our forests. You cannot have an automatic weapon,
there is no need for this in hunting.

Agreed that fully automatic weapons like M-16s are
not needed for hunting.

Handguns are made to kill human beings, not rabbits or other species.

That is why they are good for self-protection.
Hunting is not the only, or even the primary
lawful use of firearms. There is also target
shooting, self-protection, lawful protection of
property, law enforcement, international
competition, etc.

The Virginia Tech. killer used two pistols, one a 9mm automatic. I
have one of these as part of my uniform. It usually is kept locked in
a desk drawer. My belt holster is a good place for cigarettes. After
the initial cocking, each pull of the trigger will fire a bullet and
with 15 bullets to a clip, you can shoot them all in about 15 seconds.

Why would a private citizen need a weapon like that?

In case they were caught up in a shoot-out with a
deranged criminal. (Or even a sane one ;-)

I'll not go into it here, but similar instances
have been prevented because a member of the public
was armed and shot the would-be mass murderer.
The college in question (Virginia Tech) had made
the decision to prohibit anyone except law
enforcement officers from carrying firearms on
campus. Consequently, no one but the shooter was
armed.

In Malaysia it is a capital offence to possess an unlicenced firearm.
Robbers must therefore resort to knives.

Yes, and in Japan, which also does not allow
citizens to posses handguns, most of the murders
are committed with knives or swords.

I am a loss to understand how you can be so strident in defence of
your "constituational right" to carry a firearm when you didn't even
raise a murmur at the Patriot Act which removes more of your rights
and freedoms.

That is because you don't understand our history,
and how the USA became a nation. The British
crown had imposed stringent control of all weapons
including swords, armor, and firearms before the
revolutionary struggle that led to the foundation
of the US. After the war, our founders said
"never again".

Also, there is a lot of opposition to the "patriot
act", and it will eventually overturned. Remember
that the recent 9/11 attacks were unprecedented in
this country's history. More people were killed
that day than when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
It was less than six years ago.

Frankly, I would be afraid to live in a country where any psycopath or
inadequate person could pull out a gun and "get even" with me over
some minor imagined slight, but then I have issues with those wanabe
Rambos who aim paintball guns at other humans.

Actually, Peter, you do live in such a country no
matter where you live. Just because guns are
illegal, does not mean they are not around, and
the USA does not have a monopoly on psychopaths.

Also, as far as the living in the USA, no one is
asking you to come live here. From what I've seen
there are already _too many_ people from all over
the world that want to come live here.

Besides, I've lived here for 49 years now, and I
am not afraid. I've not personally witnessed
_any_ shooting incidents where anyone was shot, or
purposely shot at. Nada, zip, none. I also do
not know anyone personally who has been wounded or
killed by any violent method including guns,
knives, beating, strangulation, etc. I've also
never been robbed at gun or knifepoint, although I
do know of a couple of friends who were robbed at
gunpoint at an ATM many years ago.

I know that this is off-topic but I wanted to express my saddness.

I'm also saddened by this event, but I see it
differently. By preventing the law abiding
students and faculty from carrying weapons
legally, Virginia Tech ensured that there would be
no one in a position to stop the shooter before
the tragedy was finished. The police only arrived
in time to help clean up the mess.

For those who think we can outlaw guns to stop
this sort of thing I'll just make three points:

1) The shooter was already doing several illegal
things anyway. What makes you think they would
not have procured a black market gun?

2) Cocaine, Methamphetamines, and Cannibis are
illegal, but they are readily available everywhere
to those who break the law.

3) By removing weapons from the general populace,
you ensure that no one but the police have the
weapons needed to stop an armed murderer. The
police cannot be everywhere, and they usually show
up only after the action is over.

Now back to boating...

Don W.

wrote:

Peter writes a thoughtful post with compassion and understanding,
illustrates with specific examples of what he sees as wrong in our
gun-happy society, gives suggestions on how we can curb violence in
the US, and backs up his claims with compelling evidence of how strict
gun control laws greatly reduce violence in other countries.

Peter's posts are usually thoughtful, but...

Perhaps you could quote the part of Peter's post
where he "backs up his claims with compelling
evidence of how strict gun control laws greatly
reduce violence in other countries."

I must have missed it.

Don W.

On Apr 17, 2:54 pm, Don W
wrote:
Hi Peter,

I'm not Wilbur, but...

Peter Hendra wrote:
I had thought of making a quip about yet another "Christian terrorist"

Well, the news this morning is saying that the
shooter was a Korean foreign student. If this is
true, he may or may not have been "Christian", but
he could _not_ legally posses a firearm.

From Wikpedia
As of 2005, approximately 22 million or 46.5% of the South Korean
population express no religious preference.[26] Of the remainder, 10.7
million are Buddhist, 8.6 million are Protestant, 5.1 million are
Catholic, and less than half a million belong to various minor
religions including Jeungsando and Wonbuddhism.

I think Peter is trying to take the heat off the murdering Islamic
Jihadist that clearly use religion as a tool to con brain dead retards
into blowing themselves up and murdering scores of people in the name
of Allah.

Joe