NOT safe!

William Hamblen wrote:

On 2012-09-25, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


William Hamblen wrote:
On 2012-09-23, Christina Websell wrote:
"Mark Edwards" wrote in message
. com...
It was said:
I'm not trying to be nasty, but how many times
in the last 20 years have you
*needed* [ a gun] to defend your home?
As is frequently stated in the stock market, past performance is no
guarantee of future results. That is to say, just because it hasn't
happened so far, doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

Better to have and not need protection than to need and not have it.

Well, as I said before, if you all didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need one.
Unless to protect yourselves from bears and cougars and if that isn;t the
case you don't need a gun at all.
I don't see any reason for having guns in an urban situation. It should be
as
illlegal in the USA as it is here..


A friend had to shoot a deer that had been struck by a car last Friday night.
I suppose that never happens where you are.

Bud

Don't you have a Highway Patrol to handle such things, where you live?
Given the potential damage to a car when it strikes a large animal,
where was the car? (Usually it would not have been drivable, so the
Highway Patrol would already have been involved.)

You have a touching faith in the ability of the sheriff to reach the scene
instantly. In the time being something had to be done. My friend's wife
comforted the girl who had hit the deer while my friend dealt with the
injured animal. They were in contact with the sheriff's office and the
officer knew that my friend was going to euthanize the deer. The deer was
injured beyond any possibility of recovery. It was inhumane to let it
lie suffering.

Well, there *are* other ways to kill a dying animal. Most are probably
more unpleasant than shooting them from a distance, but it's not like it
can't be done.

I just hate your sarcasm on this subject ("I suppose that never happens.").
I hate the way Americans think the British are effete wimps because they
don't carry guns (and that includes ordinary beat cops). How dare they
suggest that maybe we don't need to have them, either? Take away our guns??
Turn us into sissies like them? This isn't merely about self-protection.
It's about identity. Tell an American he doesn't need his gun and... well,
you'd better do that over the Internet.

--
Joyce

When you finish, you have a complete (you hope) set of characters. So you call
it a "character set". And because you're in a funny mood, instead of calling
the numeric identifiers "numeric identifiers", you call them "code points".

-- Steve Ferg, "Unicode Beginners Introduction for Dummies Made Simple"

On 27/09/2012 8:10 AM, Bastette wrote:
William Hamblen wrote:

On 2012-09-25, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


William Hamblen wrote:
On 2012-09-23, Christina Websell wrote:
"Mark Edwards" wrote in message
. com...
It was said:
I'm not trying to be nasty, but how many times
in the last 20 years have you
*needed* [ a gun] to defend your home?
As is frequently stated in the stock market, past performance is no
guarantee of future results. That is to say, just because it hasn't
happened so far, doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

Better to have and not need protection than to need and not have it.

Well, as I said before, if you all didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need one.
Unless to protect yourselves from bears and cougars and if that isn;t the
case you don't need a gun at all.
I don't see any reason for having guns in an urban situation. It should be
as
illlegal in the USA as it is here..


A friend had to shoot a deer that had been struck by a car last Friday night.
I suppose that never happens where you are.

Bud

Don't you have a Highway Patrol to handle such things, where you live?
Given the potential damage to a car when it strikes a large animal,
where was the car? (Usually it would not have been drivable, so the
Highway Patrol would already have been involved.)

You have a touching faith in the ability of the sheriff to reach the scene
instantly. In the time being something had to be done. My friend's wife
comforted the girl who had hit the deer while my friend dealt with the
injured animal. They were in contact with the sheriff's office and the
officer knew that my friend was going to euthanize the deer. The deer was
injured beyond any possibility of recovery. It was inhumane to let it
lie suffering.

Well, there *are* other ways to kill a dying animal. Most are probably
more unpleasant than shooting them from a distance, but it's not like it
can't be done.

I just hate your sarcasm on this subject ("I suppose that never happens.").
I hate the way Americans think the British are effete wimps because they
don't carry guns (and that includes ordinary beat cops). How dare they
suggest that maybe we don't need to have them, either? Take away our guns??
Turn us into sissies like them? This isn't merely about self-protection.
It's about identity. Tell an American he doesn't need his gun and... well,
you'd better do that over the Internet.


Its a cultural thing.

I don't get why Americans seem to need guns. I'm sure many Americans
have no idea how we manage without them. I just know when Australians go
to the US, they don't feel particular unsafe because of the presence of
guns, and the Americans that come here don't feel particularly unsafe
because of the lack of them. The US's constitution protects the right to
have guns, the Australian constitution doesn't say anything about them.
Its cultural.

Yowie

No cluons were harmed when Yowie
wrote:
Its a cultural thing.


I don't get why Americans seem to need guns. I'm sure many
Americans
have no idea how we manage without them. I just know when
Australians go
to the US, they don't feel particular unsafe because of the
presence of
guns, and the Americans that come here don't feel particularly
unsafe
because of the lack of them. The US's constitution protects the
right to
have guns, the Australian constitution doesn't say anything about
them.
Its cultural.

What Yowie said.


Hugs and Purrs
Mark

--
Proof of sanity forged upon request

Yowie wrote:

On 27/09/2012 8:10 AM, Bastette wrote:
William Hamblen wrote:

On 2012-09-25, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:


William Hamblen wrote:
On 2012-09-23, Christina Websell wrote:
"Mark Edwards" wrote in message
. com...
It was said:
I'm not trying to be nasty, but how many times
in the last 20 years have you
*needed* [ a gun] to defend your home?
As is frequently stated in the stock market, past performance is no
guarantee of future results. That is to say, just because it hasn't
happened so far, doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

Better to have and not need protection than to need and not have it.

Well, as I said before, if you all didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need one.
Unless to protect yourselves from bears and cougars and if that isn;t the
case you don't need a gun at all.
I don't see any reason for having guns in an urban situation. It should be
as
illlegal in the USA as it is here..


A friend had to shoot a deer that had been struck by a car last Friday night.
I suppose that never happens where you are.

Bud

Don't you have a Highway Patrol to handle such things, where you live?
Given the potential damage to a car when it strikes a large animal,
where was the car? (Usually it would not have been drivable, so the
Highway Patrol would already have been involved.)

You have a touching faith in the ability of the sheriff to reach the scene
instantly. In the time being something had to be done. My friend's wife
comforted the girl who had hit the deer while my friend dealt with the
injured animal. They were in contact with the sheriff's office and the
officer knew that my friend was going to euthanize the deer. The deer was
injured beyond any possibility of recovery. It was inhumane to let it
lie suffering.

Well, there *are* other ways to kill a dying animal. Most are probably
more unpleasant than shooting them from a distance, but it's not like it
can't be done.

I just hate your sarcasm on this subject ("I suppose that never happens.").
I hate the way Americans think the British are effete wimps because they
don't carry guns (and that includes ordinary beat cops). How dare they
suggest that maybe we don't need to have them, either? Take away our guns??
Turn us into sissies like them? This isn't merely about self-protection.
It's about identity. Tell an American he doesn't need his gun and... well,
you'd better do that over the Internet.


Its a cultural thing.

I don't get why Americans seem to need guns. I'm sure many Americans
have no idea how we manage without them. I just know when Australians go
to the US, they don't feel particular unsafe because of the presence of
guns, and the Americans that come here don't feel particularly unsafe
because of the lack of them. The US's constitution protects the right to
have guns, the Australian constitution doesn't say anything about them.
Its cultural.

Actually, I wasn't complaining so much about the fact that people have
guns, as I was about the attitude that some people seem to have when
challenged about guns' necessity. There's no need to get defensive or
sarcastic about it. If someone is secure in their ability to form
intelligent opinions, they won't mind being questioned and might even
give the matter some evaluation from time to time.

Yes, it's cultural, but my beliefs aren't quite so relativistic. It's
OK to criticize cultural values, especially in your own culture. There's
a creepy strain of gun worship in US culture that goes beyond simple
necessity. If I found myself in a situation where I felt I needed a
gun, I might get one, but I wouldn't fall in love with the thing. It's
a *machine* FGS.

--
Joyce

Beauty and music seduce us first; later, ashamed of our own
sensuality, we insist on meaning. -- Clive Barker

Bastette wrote:


I just hate your sarcasm on this subject ("I suppose that never happens.").
I hate the way Americans think the British are effete wimps because they
don't carry guns (and that includes ordinary beat cops). How dare they
suggest that maybe we don't need to have them, either? Take away our guns??
Turn us into sissies like them? This isn't merely about self-protection.
It's about identity. Tell an American he doesn't need his gun and... well,
you'd better do that over the Internet.

Any doubts I ever had about the "safety" of firearms in the hands of
ordinary citizens disappeared when I took a handgun class offere4d by
the Pasadena (CA) police department. I learned a bit about the
mechanics of the things (although we only got to fire them in one of the
final sessions of the class). For the ordinary householder, all a
firearm provides is a chance for the burglar to acquire one! And how
many of us without military training could actually bring ourselves to
SHOOT someone? (To be effective, it must be an instant reflex, there's
no time for indecisiveness - and just like other "self defense"
techniques, if you have to think about it first, you've lost any
advantage you had.)

No cluons were harmed when Bastette wrote:
If I found myself in a situation where I felt I needed a
gun, I might get one, but I wouldn't fall in love with the thing.
It's
a *machine* FGS.

Them how do we explain the American love affair with 'muscle cars'?


Hugs and Purrs,
Mark

--
Proof of sanity forged upon request

Mark Edwards wrote:

No cluons were harmed when Bastette wrote:
If I found myself in a situation where I felt I needed a
gun, I might get one, but I wouldn't fall in love with the thing.
It's
a *machine* FGS.

Them how do we explain the American love affair with 'muscle cars'?


The same way. And I have the same response: It's an f'ing machine. I'm
grateful to have mine, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work very
easily. But it's not an extension of my personality. (At least, I hope
it's not. It's a decent car, but it doesn't look like much.)

People are so weird about their cars. It's like, if you're out on the
street and you happen to lean on a parked car while you tie your shoe
or something, and if the owner happens to see you, they get *very*
touchy about it. I thought maybe it was because cars are so expensive,
and people worry about damage. But what kind of damage can a person do
to a car by *leaning* on it? Or do they think you're going to steal
something? Yes, it's the famous shoe-tie maneuver!

--
Joyce

"Bastette" wrote in message ...

Mark Edwards wrote:

No cluons were harmed when Bastette wrote:
If I found myself in a situation where I felt I needed a
gun, I might get one, but I wouldn't fall in love with the thing.
It's
a *machine* FGS.

Them how do we explain the American love affair with 'muscle cars'?


The same way. And I have the same response: It's an f'ing machine. I'm
grateful to have mine, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work very
easily. But it's not an extension of my personality. (At least, I hope
it's not. It's a decent car, but it doesn't look like much.)

People are so weird about their cars. It's like, if you're out on the
street and you happen to lean on a parked car while you tie your shoe
or something, and if the owner happens to see you, they get *very*
touchy about it. I thought maybe it was because cars are so expensive,
and people worry about damage. But what kind of damage can a person do
to a car by *leaning* on it? Or do they think you're going to steal
something? Yes, it's the famous shoe-tie maneuver!

--
Joyce
******************
What kills me is people who purposefully take up two parking spaces, parked
at an angle. They don't want another car (or person) anywhere near their
precious vehicle. Oh, so you've got an expensive car. Who gives a rip? If
you were that rich you'd have a driver who dropped you off and will come
back when you've finished shopping. As a matter of fact, the housekeeper
would be doing your shopping for you. Pretentious idiots

Jill

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...
"Bastette" wrote in message ...

Mark Edwards wrote:

No cluons were harmed when Bastette wrote:
If I found myself in a situation where I felt I needed a
gun, I might get one, but I wouldn't fall in love with the thing.
It's
a *machine* FGS.

Them how do we explain the American love affair with 'muscle cars'?


The same way. And I have the same response: It's an f'ing machine. I'm
grateful to have mine, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work very
easily. But it's not an extension of my personality. (At least, I hope
it's not. It's a decent car, but it doesn't look like much.)

People are so weird about their cars. It's like, if you're out on the
street and you happen to lean on a parked car while you tie your shoe
or something, and if the owner happens to see you, they get *very*
touchy about it. I thought maybe it was because cars are so expensive,
and people worry about damage. But what kind of damage can a person do
to a car by *leaning* on it? Or do they think you're going to steal
something? Yes, it's the famous shoe-tie maneuver!

--
Joyce
******************
What kills me is people who purposefully take up two parking spaces,
parked at an angle. They don't want another car (or person) anywhere near
their precious vehicle. Oh, so you've got an expensive car. Who gives a
rip? If you were that rich you'd have a driver who dropped you off and
will come back when you've finished shopping. As a matter of fact, the
housekeeper would be doing your shopping for you. Pretentious idiots

Jill

When I was working, there was someone working in the same place who had a
very sensitive car alarm. I walked past the car in the parking lot, on the
way to mine, and immediately a very loud male (naturally) voice said, "Step
away from the car. You are too close to the car. Step away from the car."
This was repeated over and over as I walked the 100 feet or more to my car.

Joy