First I would like to send my condolences to the
families that lost loved ones to this senseless crime.
I hate posting about things that are off topic but
there is so much crap being posted I need to ask
one question.
Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't
have been able to buy the gun that he used, the
killings wouldn't have happened? If so please explain.
Rod wrote:
> First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost
> loved ones to this senseless crime.
>
>
> I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
> being posted I need to ask one question.
> Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy
> the gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
> explain.
I guess it's hard to determine just exactly what your point is. Why not
just go ahead and state it instead of issuing a rhetorical challenge.
What exactly are you asking?
In case you don't see the ambiguity in your question, are you asking if
he didn't have a gun does anyone think he wouldn't have been able to
shoot people? Seems like an odd question, after all, its pretty hard to
shoot people without a gun (discounting for the moment that "shooting"
can also be accomplished with other types of missiles like arrows and
rocks from a slingshot, etc).
But staying on that vein for a moment, without a gun, it would have been
hard to kill that many people. Knives, axes, chainsaws and the like
might work against one or two, but 20 or so and your going to start
running out of gas and/or stamina. I would also tend to think that
poisons, explosives and other stuff might tend to put the authorities on
notice ahead of time from say, your purchase of a bunch of ammonium
nitrate or the ingredients for poisonous gases.
"Rod" <bf@verizon.net> wrote in message news:SzzWh.1194$dM1.1139@trndny07...
> First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost loved
> ones to this senseless crime.
>
>
> I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
> being posted I need to ask one question.
> Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy the
> gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
> explain.
Your question is awkwardly worded, but my best guess is that you're asking
if it wasn't legal to buy a gun would he have been able to do these
killings. If that's your question, the answer is yes, it just would have
taken him more effort to obtain guns illegally. The fact a law might exist
making it illegal to obtain a gun won't stop someone bent on doing something
illegal with that weapon. Surprise, laws don't matter to felons.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:45:35 -0500, Eric Miller
<miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: Rod wrote:
: > First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost
: > loved ones to this senseless crime.
: >
: >
: > I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
: > being posted I need to ask one question.
: > Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy
: > the gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
: > explain.
:
: I guess it's hard to determine just exactly what your point is. Why not
: just go ahead and state it instead of issuing a rhetorical challenge.
: What exactly are you asking?
He's asking whether we'll allow him to start a political debate on U.S. gun
laws in this newsgroup. I hope the answer is "No".
Hey - If you want to open a gun debate go over to rec.outdoors.rv-travel.
Those guys can run a string to 200-400 posts without batting an eye.
Bye Now!
RonB
"Rod" <bf@verizon.net> wrote in message news:SzzWh.1194$dM1.1139@trndny07...
> First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost loved
> ones to this senseless crime.
>
>
> I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
> being posted I need to ask one question.
> Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy the
> gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
> explain.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:16:18 GMT, Rod <bf@verizon.net> wrote:
>First I would like to send my condolences to the
>families that lost loved ones to this senseless crime.
>
>
>I hate posting about things that are off topic but
>there is so much crap being posted I need to ask
>one question.
>Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't
>have been able to buy the gun that he used, the
>killings wouldn't have happened? If so please explain.
The problem with trying to make is so that the gun can't be bought is
that it makes the assumptions that:
1. The buyer will not just buy one illegally
2. The buyer, willing to kill people, actually gives a crap about laws
3. There is actually a way to effectively ban guns
Since you're starting with faulty assumptions, the answers will also
be faulty.
A much better question would be: Given that so many people want to ban
the posession of guns by civilians, how could this actully be
implemented?
I don't see that such a ban can actually be implemented; even in
prisons, there are guns. You'd think that if there were *anyplace*
that guns could be actually effectively banned, prisons would be the
place.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
John Edwards' campaign records showed Monday
that he paid eight hundred dollars for two
haircuts in Beverly Hills. There's no shame
in what he did. John Edwards represents the
downtrodden and the powerless in America,
and they deserve the very best.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:45:35 -0500, Eric Miller
<miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Rod wrote:
>> First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost
>> loved ones to this senseless crime.
>>
>>
>> I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
>> being posted I need to ask one question.
>> Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy
>> the gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
>> explain.
>
>I guess it's hard to determine just exactly what your point is. Why not
>just go ahead and state it instead of issuing a rhetorical challenge.
>What exactly are you asking?
>
>In case you don't see the ambiguity in your question, are you asking if
>he didn't have a gun does anyone think he wouldn't have been able to
>shoot people? Seems like an odd question, after all, its pretty hard to
>shoot people without a gun (discounting for the moment that "shooting"
>can also be accomplished with other types of missiles like arrows and
>rocks from a slingshot, etc).
>
>But staying on that vein for a moment, without a gun, it would have been
>hard to kill that many people. Knives, axes, chainsaws and the like
>might work against one or two, but 20 or so and your going to start
>running out of gas and/or stamina. I would also tend to think that
>poisons, explosives and other stuff might tend to put the authorities on
> notice ahead of time from say, your purchase of a bunch of ammonium
>nitrate or the ingredients for poisonous gases.
>
>Eric Miller
Pipe bombs are extremely easy to make, with nothing in the purchase of
parts/ingredients to tip off any authorities.
In fact, in many places, pipe bombs are easier to make than it is to
buy a gun.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
John Edwards' campaign records showed Monday
that he paid eight hundred dollars for two
haircuts in Beverly Hills. There's no shame
in what he did. John Edwards represents the
downtrodden and the powerless in America,
and they deserve the very best.
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:16:18 GMT, Rod <bf@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> First I would like to send my condolences to the
>> families that lost loved ones to this senseless crime.
>>
>>
>> I hate posting about things that are off topic but
>> there is so much crap being posted I need to ask
>> one question.
>> Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't
>> have been able to buy the gun that he used, the
>> killings wouldn't have happened? If so please explain.
>
> The problem with trying to make is so that the gun can't be bought is
> that it makes the assumptions that:
> 1. The buyer will not just buy one illegally
> 2. The buyer, willing to kill people, actually gives a crap about laws
> 3. There is actually a way to effectively ban guns
>
> Since you're starting with faulty assumptions, the answers will also
> be faulty.
> A much better question would be: Given that so many people want to ban
> the posession of guns by civilians, how could this actully be
> implemented?
> I don't see that such a ban can actually be implemented; even in
> prisons, there are guns. You'd think that if there were *anyplace*
> that guns could be actually effectively banned, prisons would be the
> place.
>
I agree with what you are saying. I just wanted to
know how many people feel that if he didn't have a
gun would he have killed anyone . The point people
are missing is that these lunatics are going to
accomplish their goal one way or the other.
For those that didn't like my question you had the
option not to read the post and you definitely
didn't have to respond.
Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:45:35 -0500, Eric Miller
> <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Rod wrote:
>>
>>>First I would like to send my condolences to the families that lost
>>>loved ones to this senseless crime.
>>>
>>>
>>>I hate posting about things that are off topic but there is so much crap
>>>being posted I need to ask one question.
>>>Does anyone think that if this lunatic wouldn't have been able to buy
>>>the gun that he used, the killings wouldn't have happened? If so please
>>>explain.
>>
>>I guess it's hard to determine just exactly what your point is. Why not
>>just go ahead and state it instead of issuing a rhetorical challenge.
>>What exactly are you asking?
>>
>>In case you don't see the ambiguity in your question, are you asking if
>>he didn't have a gun does anyone think he wouldn't have been able to
>>shoot people? Seems like an odd question, after all, its pretty hard to
>>shoot people without a gun (discounting for the moment that "shooting"
>>can also be accomplished with other types of missiles like arrows and
>>rocks from a slingshot, etc).
>>
>>But staying on that vein for a moment, without a gun, it would have been
>>hard to kill that many people. Knives, axes, chainsaws and the like
>>might work against one or two, but 20 or so and your going to start
>>running out of gas and/or stamina. I would also tend to think that
>>poisons, explosives and other stuff might tend to put the authorities on
>> notice ahead of time from say, your purchase of a bunch of ammonium
>>nitrate or the ingredients for poisonous gases.
>>
>>Eric Miller
>
>
> Pipe bombs are extremely easy to make, with nothing in the purchase of
> parts/ingredients to tip off any authorities.
> In fact, in many places, pipe bombs are easier to make than it is to
> buy a gun.
>
31 people in different rooms, or even in the same room, would be a tough
one for a pipe bomb and you really don't want to be there when it goes
off. Besides, to make sure they will work, you have to test and you run
the chance of getting convicted for bombmaking. Cheaper and easier
maybe, but not as effective.
VT Shooting 
Linear Mode
