On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:15:29 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:27:10 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>>> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets
>>>> the gun.
>>>
>>> Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up
>>> defeat part of the objective?
>>
>> Well, you would think so.  At least that's the argument that some
>> people make. Child safety locks are another option as well.
> 
> You mean like those child-proof containers you have to get your
> neighbour's 11-year old to open for you :-P Seriously though shouldn't a
> safety catch be enough?

You'd think so, of course some also argue that taking the safety off 
takes time as well, and that time could be the difference between life 
and death.

But no, the safety locks aren't quite like a safety cap on medication 
containers.

>> And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as well.
> 
> Which again defeats the purpose of a home defence weapon. If it's not
> accessible and easy to use what's the point in having one? You might as
> well stick to keeping a baseball bat by the side of the bed.

I've got a sharp pointy weapon within easy reach should it be needed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 06:36:19 -0500, alphaQuad wrote:

> This crap not only kills pests but innocent people too, when a victim
> ingesting too much fluorine finds a gun.

You still haven't answered my question about what your qualifications are.

Until then, I'll just keep ignoring you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:10:06 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47ba4cb9@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:56:40 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>>> news:47ba104d$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Feb 2008 13:29:58 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's the funny thing about it (and it just struck me) - the same
>>>>>>people who say that the 2nd amendment allows them to own guns "just
>>>>>>in case the government gets out of control"
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that it was in case those Brit visitors aren't really
>>>>> tourists :)
>>>>
>>>> LOL, you know, that could be true. :-)
>>>
>>> How about sending Andy over in a red coat?  If nothing happens, it's
>>> safe to go.
>>
>> What, Andy is your canary? ;-)
> 
> Well, exactly:  *I* don't want to die!  Actually he's not really my
> canary, truth be told, but it's fun to watch.  I'm from the penal colony
> that his country founded in New Holland, and we cut ourselves off from
> them a little while ago.  :-)

I'm sure Andy will find that comforting. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it.  That crap can kill 
you.

I've got an acquaintance whose adopted daughter *died* from that shit.  
Seriously (I'm not making this up).  We should really stop putting that 
poison into our bodies.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:41:26 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:

> I remember  :-)   Maybe if we started saying how fantastic the skiing is
> in the US..?

It is in Utah, at least that's what all my friends on Germany say - 
they're coming out in March and bringing their wives/girlfriends for an 
extra week just so they can ski. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:10:57 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> There we have another difference, licences here need to be reapplied for
> every year (or two?) so they can be removed from those deemed unsuitable
> to hold them.

Over here, it's a right, not a privilege, so once you're licensed it 
seems to be for life.

(There's a modicum of sarcasm there - but I don't know that you need to 
renew out here in Utah).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:12:27 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:15:29 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:27:10 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets
>>>>> the gun.
>>>>
>>>> Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up
>>>> defeat part of the objective?
>>>
>>> Well, you would think so.  At least that's the argument that some
>>> people make. Child safety locks are another option as well.
>>
>> You mean like those child-proof containers you have to get your
>> neighbour's 11-year old to open for you :-P Seriously though shouldn't a
>> safety catch be enough?
>
> You'd think so, of course some also argue that taking the safety off
> takes time as well, and that time could be the difference between life
> and death.
>
> But no, the safety locks aren't quite like a safety cap on medication
> containers.

No of course, but having a safety lock and a child lock; hey why not just  
lock it away in a gun cabinet :-P

>>> And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as well.
>>
>> Which again defeats the purpose of a home defence weapon. If it's not
>> accessible and easy to use what's the point in having one? You might as
>> well stick to keeping a baseball bat by the side of the bed.
>
> I've got a sharp pointy weapon within easy reach should it be needed.

I've an umbrella... which sounds kind of dumb until I demonstrate its  
four-foot reach and 3-inch blunted spike on the end :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:59:29 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:12:27 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:15:29 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:27:10 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid
>>>>>> gets the gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it
>>>>> up defeat part of the objective?
>>>>
>>>> Well, you would think so.  At least that's the argument that some
>>>> people make. Child safety locks are another option as well.
>>>
>>> You mean like those child-proof containers you have to get your
>>> neighbour's 11-year old to open for you :-P Seriously though shouldn't
>>> a safety catch be enough?
>>
>> You'd think so, of course some also argue that taking the safety off
>> takes time as well, and that time could be the difference between life
>> and death.
>>
>> But no, the safety locks aren't quite like a safety cap on medication
>> containers.
> 
> No of course, but having a safety lock and a child lock; hey why not
> just lock it away in a gun cabinet :-P

I'm good with that.

>>>> And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> Which again defeats the purpose of a home defence weapon. If it's not
>>> accessible and easy to use what's the point in having one? You might
>>> as well stick to keeping a baseball bat by the side of the bed.
>>
>> I've got a sharp pointy weapon within easy reach should it be needed.
> 
> I've an umbrella... which sounds kind of dumb until I demonstrate its
> four-foot reach and 3-inch blunted spike on the end :-)

I've got one like that as well.  The sharp pointy weapon is an antique, 
but it's still quite sharp.  I wouldn't want to get the blade stained 
(nor would my wife, as it's hers) if we could possibly avoid it, but it 
would certainly be effective at close range.

We have had occasion to "clear" the house using a couple of them, 
actually - came home and found we'd left the back door unlocked, and 
*thought* we heard a noise in the basement.  Plenty of doorways to hide 
behind, and the basement was clear (so all's well that ends well).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47bb0130$1@news.povray.org...
> Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it.  That crap can kill
> you.

Don't forget about the chloride ions while you're at it. After all, Chlorine
is a chemical warfare agent.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:09:15 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47bb0130$1@news.povray.org...
>> Watch out for dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it.  That crap can
>> kill you.
> 
> Don't forget about the chloride ions while you're at it. After all,
> Chlorine is a chemical warfare agent.

Ah, yes, that's true.  Also, CO2 is a silent killer.  Nasty stuff, we 
should get rid of all of that as well.

In fact, we should also stop eating broccoli.  That contains some of the 
elements used in mustard gas, after all.  So it must also be bad for you.

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message