 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I think you missed the path of the discussion - my comment was based on an earlier one that said everything would be peaceful and wonderful if *EVERYONE* walked around with a gun. Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I don't. Because "used illegally" is a misnomer. When I was a teen, I knew kids (several) who carried guns daily. Those were all guns used illegally. And none of them were a problem. The problem only comes from people committing other crimes (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I note you skipped the part about the morons firing into the air not getting into the stats. :-) And those instances you mention weren't reported and so weren't part of the stats, either. Bruce (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I was trying to skip right to the meat of the matter. Not trying to avoid it. (...) Maybe. That certainly isn't a given. For one thing, statistics often are compiled such that they attempt to represent under reported aspects. Since the statute (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) You're right, I did miss most of the thread. A thousand pardons Sahib! But I did see that comment by Chris. I was reacting to the word carnage in my comments above. Although, I do think the world would be safer if more responsible citizens (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) This is certainly a valid point, and close to home since a co-worker in the next building over from mine had his son involved in this very incident (thankfully unharmed). But it was the presense of armed guards, not Joe Blow with a concealed (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
I'm going to address a few selective points here, please excuse me - tonight is my 9th wedding anniversary - goin out for a nice dinner. (...) That is very true. An armed and highly visible guard would have affected his decision, but I would contend (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Or shot more innocents. If the number of handguns were thinned out, it would be less likely Joe Blow would need his handgun. There is also the increased number of wackos carrying handguns to contend with ("Hey, you cut me off, well I'll show (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I support the notion that people ought to be competent users of any powerful tool, especially one as powerful as a gun. However... My objection to an apriori training requirement (rather than an aposteriori lawsuit for negligent behaviour) is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GGqtL6.25y@lugnet.com... (...) owner needs (...) nothing ever is. (...) powerful (...) aposteriori (...) nonetheless, (...) white could (...) could (...) except (...) somewhere (and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Why? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) This is an interesting point, but I think it can be avoided if it is a Federal test, not a state or other local test. Since the test should be done in conjunction with the training course, there shouldn't be a problem: if it ain't in the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I assume the resultant gun is then illegal? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Not at all, and this has never been so. (I would point that even if inferior 'laws' stated that, they would be negated by the constitution, but that's not really my point at this time.) (...) said. (...) See (URL) for the details. Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) You can negotiate tight situations, like twisty narrow hallways better with such a weapon. Why not? Chris (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I forget - I think it's illegal. Or was (I noted a more up to date response on the laws a few messages back). Bruce (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Fwoosh - that's way too much to wade through. I found another site that condensed it more to the essentials. 10 states prohibit the sale of fully-automatic weapons (machine-guns) entirely. The rest may or may not have some retrictions, and (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
<snip> (...) is (...) and (...) the (...) must (...) to (...) stock (...) Greater concealability, better maneuverability. Nothing says "You broke into the wrong house" like .00 buckshot to the chest. -- Overkill is the only sure kill. SR (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
