"Blanks" kill actors

If they don't work then why pass them? If you pass them and don't enforce them they wont work.

You just said the laws don't work. And if guns are passing from state to state, your suggestion implies that you'd have to ban them altogether, and that still would't stop it. If an area is a high crime rate area, it's because the good people don't have access to firearms because they obey the laws and the bad people who get them illeaglly don't.

Just exactly how fast can you run? Can you also outrun a construction power hammer?

That's a gory thought ........ just before it rips your head off.

What difference does it make? My firearms have never been involved with a murder either.

Then there is no reason to pass laws the affect law abiding citizens and that criminals will ignore. You said the laws are not obeyed.

Would you run a newspaper business at a loss because you wanted to print unpopular articles or would you print popular articles so you could keep in the black or outsell your competition?

I didn't say I wasn't biased. I think that any laws that are passed that infringe upon my right to own a firearm are unconstitutional. Anyone or any media that supports that I think is wrong in doing so. I'm biased in favor of the Constitution of the United States.

So .... do you think by passing laws and reqireing training, your going to reduce the suicide rate? So when someone wants to commint suicide and they gone to a training course, they're going to have a real problem getting the trigger guard off the gun ............ yeah sure. And of course if they CAN'T, I guess they'll just never be able to think of another way to end it all.

You don't seem to get it. The people that wont safe keep their guns are not going to safe keep them any better just because it's mandatory to go to a training course and are required to use a trigger guard. It's not out of ignorance that gun accidents happen it's neglect. You can pass all the laws you want regarding the private ownership of firearms. No one is going to be able to enforce them. Stupid people will do stupid things and no laws will ever change that. But they WILL affect all the others and infringe upon THEIR rights and access to their firearms. That's wrong. You can't pass laws that respond to the least common denomiator. It exactly that portion of the populace that will ingore them.

Here's where you lose me. I didn't say anything as to whether I'm for or against helmets. It's irrelevent here.

That's a liberal myth. The govenment, according to our Forefathers, is only there to protect us from outside invaders. Not ourselves.

Shaun, I read the rest of this and I think I'll stop responding to you now.

Since you can't even respond to what I said. Since you assume things I didn't say. Since you cherry pick the points I make to respond to, Since you respond to someone else and think it's me......

It's obvious that you can't ..... well let me hold the possible insult here.

It was nice ............... up to a point, but it's begun to be too arduous a task to keep your replies in some logical order so that I can reply in a resonably cogent manner. I'm sure you will hold on to your beliefs. The difference between us is ..... I actively work on, and financially support, maintaining the right to bear arms. I have for decades and will coninue to be active. From your posts here, I'd have to guess that you only hold opinions ... for which I am greatful.

I can only say that over the last 30 or so years, I've read books on the founding of our country and the Federalist Papers, treatises on the Constitution and histories of a number of the founding fathers. The Founding Fathers though that the Second Amendment was the second most important item to the importance of maintainging a free nation. And in my opinion it is the right that makes all the others possible. Anything ..... that is ANYTHING, that infringes upon that right is not acceptable. You can rationalize it. You can try to color it any shade you want ............. but if you are in favor of ... or try to limit, restrict, license, modify, register it in any, ANY way whatsoever, you are infringing upon my right. In my opinion it's ALREADY gone too far. As long as I have the ability to fight any further infringement .............. I will.

FEELGOOD librials .......... be damned.

Maybe you should have done this with Florida State Statute before you thought of yourself as a self proclaimed expert.

It's difficult in a thread responding to a piece of a thread to reply in any coherent order and still quote the passages I want to respond to.

First of all, my last set of comments was not directed at any one respondent, so if someone else said he's against helmet laws, okay, it was someone else.

Secondly, I did NOT NOT NOT say that gun laws don't work. You took what I said out of context. What I said was that it was someone else's faulty logic that said that since places with high crime rates had stricter laws then their conclusion (their faulty conclusion) was that the laws don't work.

Thirdly, I have no personal agenda. I don't have a gun, and I am not against them.

Fourthly, no, I wouldn't run a business at a loss. But I don't think too many people are cancelling their NY Times subscriptions because the paper ran articles that covered stories they don't like.

If people really believe there's some vast conspiracy to keep some news about guns from the public, well, I can't help that.

A few years ago, while doing research that some people on this thread are claiming I've never done, I wrote to the NRA asking if they could give me some examples of guns used to stop crimes. They never wrote back. I'm pretty sure if you wrote to the anti-gun people and asked for examples of guns used for bad purposes you'd get a vat of examples. But no, I haven't done that, and as I have no affiliation with any of those organizations, I can't be sure.

Yes, requiring training will lower the suicide rate. No, it won't stop you from unlocking your trigger guard. It may make you more likely to use a trigger guard and keep your son or daughter from using the gun to kill himself or herself. Why? Because until you take the course, you might not think about potential suicides. Just like all the seat belt propaganda in drivers ed classes. And, frankly, just like the idea of taking away a drunk friend's car keys, or moving your car to block them in so they can't drive home when they're drunk. Something you might not think of without the course. If your son comes to you in tears and tells you he's thinking about killing himself because his girlfriend broke up with him, I hope you put the trigger lock on.

"I only care about things that effect me personally, or members of my family, and my kids. How you raise your kids is up to you. How I raise my kids is up to me. It's a simple concept. Stop believing parents are neglectful, or are saints, such as you. It's not for you, or any other State or Federal government to get partially involved in. "

Ouch. You care not about anyone else? There are a lot of words to describe that. I care about other people. How you raise your kids IS up to you, unless you do such a horrible job that we believe that the state should step in and save your kids. I don't believe any particular parents are neglectful, or saints (excepting my parents, of course, who are wonderful). But when parents do things that endanger their kids we, as a society, have some responsibility to save those kids. I also don't believe that people deserve to die because of their stupidity, or due to a momentary lapse of reason.

Here are some general thoughts, and then I'll leave this alone:

I offer facts. I offer suggestions, theories, proposed solutions. I state problems and I suggest solutions.

You offer "you don't know what you're talking about... Second Amendment, Second Amendment, Second Amendment. Laws don't stop criminals so leave me alone. I want my gun, don't try to take it away."

So:

The U.S. has a higher gun murder rate, by far, than do Canada, England, Ireland, France, Australia, Germany, Japan... do you agree we have a problem? I'm not asking the CAUSE of the problem, just if you think this is okay or not.

Children find guns and there are accidents. Do you have a solution to this? Do you want to reduce the deaths due to this? Okay, how? Or not, since it's not your kids?

Do you think that since we regulate car ownership and use, it's reasonable, or unreasonable, to apply similar standards to guns? Or should anybody, at any time, be allowed to buy and carry a weapon? Or should there be no rules on car use either?

Do you agree that just because a law is not 100% effective that does NOT mean that it is useless? Or should we abolish laws that don't completely stop what they were intended to stop?

Thank you for so misinterpreting just about everything I said that you help prove most of what I said.

And by the way, that PhD in psychology that you must have to be so in tune with me from reading a few postings that you can diagnose all my ailments, well, return it and get your money back.

I don't know why you have repeatedly brought up the subject of priests molesting children, but it has less to do with the issue of gun control than this thread has to do with alarms. Regardless, I don't think that child-molesting falls under the categories of stupidity or a momentary lapse of reason.

You may be better now, but when you call people stupid and ignorant, try to spell most of the words correctly.

I have enjoyed hearing other points of view on this thread, when they have had a rational explanation of their thoughts. It has been less than enlightening when people simply post that they think that someone else is stupid, misquote other people, and call them names without actually responding to any ideas.

Oh, one more thing-- how many times do I have to say that I'm not in favor of taking away guns before the next person posting stops claiming that I say I am?

Sigh!

Dude are you from belgium?

Buddy, are you f****ng kidding me? You are an idiot. What the f*ck is this "we" part? So some knuckle head like you assumes to have all this vast knowledge of life, family and their children? Here's a clue for you. (1) This is a newsgroup about alarm systems, installers, and in general the alarm industry. (2) Your stupid ass rants and opinions are like any other liberal dipshit secluded from the reality of real life; nobody can help you there. (3)What the f*ck is your point here? (4) We all agree with you, now PISS OFF.

(excepting my parents, of

You don't know what you believe, that's the problem. You're pissed because now there is a helmet law, and back when you fell off your bicycle, and inflicted all that brain damage on yourself, you feel resentful, and neglected. Your still pissed about your nieghbor, little Tommy, killing that squirell with his BB gun, and you want guns removed from everyone because of it.

What responsibilty is that? I don't disagree with what you're saying. I disagree with the end result of all the reactive efforts. You as a society, tend to believe you have ALL the answers, until it comes time to be held accountable for the welfare of that child/children. You, and your society assume you need to take a stand on responsibilty, but ultimately a child faces his or her neglect alone. You and your society believe that the effects of child neglect, and abuse can be treated, when it's not a disease. A child doesn't get sexually molested by a priest because his/her parents were neglectful. You and your society believe you can heal scares like that by being reactive to the event. I doesn't do shit for the child welfare, you missed the chance.

I also don't believe that people deserve to die because of their

Good for you. If some priest sexually molested my child, you'd find him hanging in Central Park by the neck, with a 50 lb. cynder block tied to his genitals, with a gun shot wound to the center of his skull.

Here's one from me. Unplug your computer from the rest of the world, live your secluded life in the peace of your own home, and die, knowing you, like the other 80% of the stupid American reactive public didn't make a difference in the world, or this Country. I'm better now.

That's gotta be a record for you... Shortest response I've ever seen... :-))

"11" children. If they were so concerned about the childrens' safety then why pack so many of them into the house?

Real saints would have only adopted as many as they could comfortably accommodate.

So you prefer warehousing without oversight to warehousing with oversight. They took in too many...

Lets find out how many kids were packed into each bedroom. If you wouldn't do that to 'normal' kids why is it allright to do it to special needs kids... especially when some of them are dangerous.

If one whishes to help others - Bravo!

But, everything in moderation and make sure that you are truly 'helping'.

There are saints, then there are those who want others to believe that they are..

Go down to a homeless shelter "fluff" some pillows, and put some food in the bowls. I'm done with this Pecker Head Discussion (PHD).

I've been involved with the "gun" issue for SO many years. I actually HAVE read the Federalist Papers and a brazillion articles, and talked a blue steak about it with lots and lots of people. If you're only listening to the general media, you're gonna have the same outlook on gun ownership as Shaun has. I can't tell you how typical his replies are. If I had recorded 200 conversations that I've had with "uninformed" people about this issue, they'd all be almost identical. There's this "common opinion" that is derived from what the media publishes about firearms and their use. Unless you've studied the history of firearms through European and American history, and the opinions, papers and biographies of the Founding Fathers, you're just going to have this "common opinion" and you think it's accurate. I don't have any thing else I can say or do to refute it, with out cracking the books and citing whole paragraphs and excerpts from historical books and cases that have been tried in Federal and the Supreme Court, through the years.

Rather than do that ............. it's much easier to

Sigh!

If you tie this "common opinion" together with a liberal, who thinks we should expend our last bit of energy on taking care of idiots, rather than everyone taking care of themselves, you've got the makings of an attitude that the Constitution is an ever changing document rather than being written in stone. So it's ok , inch, by inch to errode it's intent to make someone "feel good"

Sigh!

Hmmmm! I always though that stood for Pretty Huge Dick

In 8th grade in the rural area of BC I grew up in, we had a mandatory "Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education" course that, along with learning how to identify various animals and how not to get lost in the woods, included firearms training.

Rule #1 of fireamrs handling: Always, always, ALWAYS ASSUME THAT ANY GUN

When I was doing IT support for a digital-arts school a few years ago, they had a group of local tv/movie industry behind-the-scenes folks come in (props people and such) to do various demonstrations for groups of high-school kids that were in for a between-semesters tour.

First thing the props master did when they got to prop guns was demonstrate the destructive power of "blanks"... by blasting holes through chunks of cardboard.

Was a very impressive and sobering demonstration.

You've got that dead right (no pun intended....:((..)

RHC

Rule #1: Always assume that your kid / the neighbor's kid / any kid will play with an unlocked gun, load and fire it.

same thing as a car going out of the parking lot of a bar

always assume that the driver is loaded!!

"R.H.Campbell" a écrit dans le message de news: _tydnUfKs snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com...

I think that being folded four times would hurt enough that it would be difficult to perform at all, let alone transmit much of anything.

This begs the question what then ought we to register? :^)

FTR, I'm not interested in gun registration per se. I do believe that it should be illegal to store a firearm unless it is locked up or has a trigger lock to prevent use by unauthorized persons, especially children. As to those who insist they can teach their 9-year-olds gun safety, I wonder if they also believe that they can teach their 9-year olds to drive a bus with sufficient skill as to avoid killing themselves or anyone else.

Yeah, well that about sums it up as well as eveyone already has figured out.

You're saying that you couldn't learn at a considerably older age what a 9 year old can learn.

How old were you when your "driving skills" killed that girl ?