On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:55:11 +0100, scott wrote:

> So anyone who says that they need guns to protect themselves, better arm
> their kids too.

There are some who seriously think teachers should be permitted to carry 
guns in schools.

Because, of course, you've never seen a high school student who was 
bigger than a teacher...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:58:12 +0100, scott wrote:

>>>> And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> What, incase someone breaks into your house and you need to use it?
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Most accidental shootings in the home are the result of the weapon
>> being left out loaded and ready to use.
> 
> Oh I can believe that - but if the reason of having a gun is to protect
> your home, what good is it if it's locked away unloaded?  You think some
> intruder is going to wait patiently while you get your keys, unlock the
> gun cabinet and load the gun?

Why do you think we don't have one?  I agree it doesn't make sense.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:17:21 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> Except we're back to why 'you' have the weapon in the first place.

Well, *I* don't, because I'd want it to be stored safely.  I have other 
ways of dealing with an intruder - fortunately, where we live, that's not 
much of a danger.  Most of the crime around here is car prowls and 
vandalism.

>> 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.
> 
> 'Now look what you've done. You've got all that horrible blood on my
> antique' Sorry I just found that a funny thought.

That's OK, we'd probably say something like that, because we're that kind 
of people....

>> 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).
> 
> Most people here would have called 999, then waited until the next day
> for the police to turn up.

BTDT as well (not for a possible break-in, though) - witnessed a fight 
out in front of our gym last week, called the cops - (a) they didn't know 
where the liquor store was that I told them about, so I had to drive 
around and find a street sign.  There was a cop stationed at the liquor 
store, but they sent another car out.  Of course, by the time they said 
they'd send a car out, the fight was long over.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:17:14 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:59:29 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've an umbrella... which sounds kind of dumb until I demonstrate its
>>> four-foot reach and 3-inch blunted spike on the end :-)
>>
>> My name is Steed, John Steed :)
> 
> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg look-a-like
> ;-)

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> As for why they don't turn the situation into a movie scene, I think the
>> reason they get a CC permit explains that.
> 
> Do they have to give some reason when they apply for a CC permit then?
> What reason do they give?
> 

In Virginia, I think they do. In more strict states, the only reason you
get a CC permit is if you have a reason that some bureaucrat thinks is
'good enough'. I don't think "To show them all, mwahaha!" would get a
permit here, but leaving it blank or "For safety" might. From another
angle, how many people who really just want to shoot someone are going
to walk into a police department and give both their fingerprints and
permission to examine their life for any sign of violence?

People who might get a permit in a stricter state:
High profile executives and their body guards (kidnapping threats
apparently still happen)
People have been assaulted or have a restraining order against someone
violent (don't date violent repeat felons, that's the first hint)
Single woman living alone in bad neighborhood

Alternatively, the state of Vermont allows anyone to carry a concealed
weapon. I can't recall hearing about any shootings there.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:25 -0000, andrel  
<a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:17:14 -0000, Stephen  
>>> <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:59:29 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've an umbrella... which sounds kind of dumb until I demonstrate its
>>>>> four-foot reach and 3-inch blunted spike on the end :-)
>>>> My name is Steed, John Steed :)
>>> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg look-a-like  
>>> ;-)
>>>
>> Who wouldn't?
>>
> Anyone who does not particularly fancy 70 year old ladies?

I thought everyone knew that all Bowler hats were equipped with personal  
time machines?

-- 
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

And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:52:39 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:17:21 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Except we're back to why 'you' have the weapon in the first place.
>
> Well, *I* don't, because I'd want it to be stored safely.

Our language really needs to (re)introduce some terms for "you" -  
singular, personal; plural personal; plural imnpersonal i.e. you go and  
help him; you, that group there, go and help him; you as a country should  
help him.

>  I have other
> ways of dealing with an intruder - fortunately, where we live, that's not
> much of a danger.  Most of the crime around here is car prowls and
> vandalism.

We've had some break-ins locally, a bit of vandalism, some stabbings in  
town; the usual kind of thing.

>>> 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.
>>
>> 'Now look what you've done. You've got all that horrible blood on my
>> antique' Sorry I just found that a funny thought.
>
> That's OK, we'd probably say something like that, because we're that kind
> of people....

Now was that "we" plural personal or plural impersonal? :-)

>>> 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).
>>
>> Most people here would have called 999, then waited until the next day
>> for the police to turn up.
>
> BTDT as well (not for a possible break-in, though) - witnessed a fight
> out in front of our gym last week, called the cops - (a) they didn't know
> where the liquor store was that I told them about, so I had to drive
> around and find a street sign.  There was a cop stationed at the liquor
> store, but they sent another car out.  Of course, by the time they said
> they'd send a car out, the fight was long over.

Similar problems when the police aren't local. Damn I'd thought I'd  
uploaded a picture to Flickr of our local police station's opening times;  
I can't find it now.

-- 
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

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message 
news:op.t6vagj2ec3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:25 -0000, andrel 
> <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>>> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg look-a-like 
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>> Who wouldn't?
>>>
>> Anyone who does not particularly fancy 70 year old ladies?
>
> I thought everyone knew that all Bowler hats were equipped with personal 
> time machines?

Ah.  And there I was, relying on a long striped scarf.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:36:30 -0000, Brian Elliott  
<NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message  
> news:op.t6vagj2ec3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:25 -0000, andrel  
>> <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>>>> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg  
>>>>> look-a-like ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Who wouldn't?
>>>>
>>> Anyone who does not particularly fancy 70 year old ladies?
>>
>> I thought everyone knew that all Bowler hats were equipped with  
>> personal time machines?
>
> Ah.  And there I was, relying on a long striped scarf.

I thought they were all recalled for safety reasons, too many people  
tripping up and squishing the wrong butterfly.

-- 
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 Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:28:37 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>>> Except we're back to why 'you' have the weapon in the first place.
>>
>> Well, *I* don't, because I'd want it to be stored safely.
> 
> Our language really needs to (re)introduce some terms for "you" -
> singular, personal; plural personal; plural imnpersonal i.e. you go and
> help him; you, that group there, go and help him; you as a country
> should help him.

Well, it's your language - fix it. ;-)

>>  I have other
>> ways of dealing with an intruder - fortunately, where we live, that's
>> not much of a danger.  Most of the crime around here is car prowls and
>> vandalism.
> 
> We've had some break-ins locally, a bit of vandalism, some stabbings in
> town; the usual kind of thing.

Stabbings, I don't think we have often here - we meet about monthly with 
our local police liason (part of our community meetings), so we keep 
pretty aware of what crimes are going on in the neighborhood.  There's a 
bit more drug crime a few blocks west of us (the parks seem to attract it 
around here), but around here it's pretty safe.

>>> 'Now look what you've done. You've got all that horrible blood on my
>>> antique' Sorry I just found that a funny thought.
>>
>> That's OK, we'd probably say something like that, because we're that
>> kind of people....
> 
> Now was that "we" plural personal or plural impersonal? :-)

The royal "we".  Oh, wait, no it wasn't.  It's my wife and I. :-)

>> BTDT as well (not for a possible break-in, though) - witnessed a fight
>> out in front of our gym last week, called the cops - (a) they didn't
>> know where the liquor store was that I told them about, so I had to
>> drive around and find a street sign.  There was a cop stationed at the
>> liquor store, but they sent another car out.  Of course, by the time
>> they said they'd send a car out, the fight was long over.
> 
> Similar problems when the police aren't local. Damn I'd thought I'd
> uploaded a picture to Flickr of our local police station's opening
> times; I can't find it now.

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message