On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Lucky Green wrote:

At gun ranges across the country, where just about everybody is armed, physical violence is virtually nonexistent. Ever wonder why this is the case? After thinking about it for a while, even the slower ones amongst us might be able to figure out the cause.

Yeah, the guys running it with pistols stuffed in their belts will shoot you if you get too nutty. They also tend to outlaw fast draws (some won't even let you wear a pistol in a holster while on the range) and other such shenanigans. So we see that gun ranges don't allow anyone/everyone to run around armed and operating equally. As a result, your point is bogus. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Normen Nomesco wrote:

...

At gun ranges across the country, where just about everybody is armed, physical violence is virtually nonexistent. Ever wonder why this is the case? After thinking about it for a while, even the slower ones amongst us might be able to figure out the cause.

Gun ranges are places were reasonable people go in a normal state of mind a gun range is not the real world

the real world does not have a weapons master on site and you are not given ear plugs and the chance to reload

No shit Sherlock, when did that dawn upon you? But hey, guess what? When you go to driving school, you have nice stickers on the car that say "Student Driver" and you have an instructor (car master?) who has a second brake incase you fuck up so you can learn. But once you leave the driving school and have your license, you're in the real world. You don't have the student driver stickers, nor the "car master" next to you. In an airplane with 3-4 terrorists, you'd presumably be one passenger of 120. If even 5% of the passengers had guns, none would have to reload. I highly doubt that they would need a weapons master to tell them how to hold a gun. I certainly think that most people would be glad they were alive and unhurt thanks to said gun carriers, and would mind the ringing in their ears far less than being dead. And certainly assuming most guns have at least 6 shots, multiplied by 6 people (that's 5% of 120 people) would give you 36 shots to put 4 assholes out of everyone's misery, I don't think you have to worry about reloading. You have very little to add to this conversation Mr. Anti Gun.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Normen Nomesco wrote:

Oh and Im sure having guns on board planes would work out great especially considering the increase of people having huge fucking fits and having to be held down on planes, yeah, lets arm people on planes. Have you ever fucking even been on a plan? I wouldn't trust most of my fellow monkeys with a sharp edge on the free peanuts.

Fuck you and get a clue. You're assuming that 90% of the population is irresponsible for itself. Today, I know for a fact that we are good, honest, law abiding folk. No doubt, no ifs, no buts. I didn't see looting, I didn't see insanity, I didn't see a single soul that did not try and help his fellow exodee (if you would allow me the lattitude in inventing the word.) In fact, most people are not going to go around killing each other. Even if they could. Most people are going to help each other. Have you ever thought it out for a second past the media bullshit you'v been spoon fed about how guns are evil? They're not evil, they're tools. They're equalizers. They make the smallest pipsqueak equal to the tallest muscular bad ass out there. And that in itself is why we need them. Two factors: a) 90+% of the population isn't interested in hurting others. B) when those that would pop out from under their rocks, they would be surrounded by those who would put them out of everyone's misery without the slightest hesitation.

I am sickened that you would make this correlation in an attempt to further the banner of gun proliferation.

Did you ever stop to think that UM... If you could bring a gun on board a plane, the terrorist would have GUNS instead of knifes and cardboard cutters.

Yes, and didn't you stop to think for a second that if a single terrorist had a gun, but he was surrounded by fifty others against him with guns that he would not survive? Even if he were suicidal? Think for a second. Yes, he could put his gun to the head of a child next to him, and quite likely suceede in murdering that child. But he would not be able to achieve any goals whatsoever. HE would be shot down instantly without mercy. A terrorist's goal is a simple one. TO force others to his will. If he knows he will die and is willing to die, he will do this gladly as we saw today. But if he knows that he will die and not achive his goals, if the price is one terrorist's life for that of an innocent versus eight terrorists for the price of 20,000, he wouldn't even attempt such a thing.

Yeah, im sure mr fat and lazy American middle class business man with his .38 and his 20 hours on the range will be able to easily take on someone who has spent 30 years fighting as a terrorist and being trained sine he was 10 years old.

I'm 100% positive that a single armed terrorist with the best training in the world would perish within seconds at the hands of 50+ such businessmen before taking out more than several victims. To understand this, you must think as they did. They suceeded in sacrificing eight of their lives on two planes - or so the reports say 3-4 ragheads per plan with sharp implements managed to raze at least three buildings. I don't know how many died, but they said that over 10,000 people worked at EACH of those buildings. I hope most of them managed to get out. Back to the point: the bastards did the math just as well. Eight of their lives for 20,000 of ours. If everyone had guns, even if the terrorists also had guns, 4 guys in a plan of 120 would not have been able to force the plane to become a bomb. Simple, cold, math. You can add, can't you?

Fighting against some of the best and well equipped formal militaries in the world, the equivalent of a hyper religious navy seal.

Bullshit, they had knives and sharp instruments. No matter how well trained a killer is, he is no match for odds like 120 to 4 against. Yes, I grant you, of those 120, many would have died. But not thousands.

I can see it now, 2 blue haired republican nuns with .22 took them on and won and the world was safe.

And why the fuck not. Guns again are equalizers, They make the weakest of us into an equal of the strongest of them.

Yeah, I am sure that having guns on the plane would have saved everyone.

No, not everyone. But that would have saved 20,000 lives at a cost of perhaps three or four innocents.

Even on this list, I rarely say it your a fucking moron

Look in the mirror. Learn the math. Learn the crime statistics of those cities and states that outright ban guns versus those that don't. Then perhaps you can remove your socialist gun-paranoid foot from that hole you utter words with.