[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[David Froble]

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <jvmds6$2mk$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> But I do know guns, and the liberals once again are more interested in 
>> appearance than 
>> fact.  Fact is, if you want to do some damage, most assault weapons would 
>> rate rather low 
>> on the list of capabilities.
> 
>    1)  Please wrap you lines at less than 80 characters so we can read
>        them.  You did intent that we read them?

Ok, went looking for that.

>    2)  You go find someone who has had a real looking gun pointed at their 
>        face and ask them if reality was more important than appearance.

You're either intentionally or through ignorance misunderstanding what I wrote.  I was 
comparing 2 different weapons, and pointing out the destructive potential of each.  One 
which is restricted has lower potential for destruction, and the other, freely available, 
has greater destructive potential.  Either one pointed in your face will get your 
attention.  That has nothing to do with the comparison of destructive potential.

>       There have been more then enough cases of officers shooting in
>       self defence at what turned out to be not real.  And I'm with
>       every jury that said the officer was not guilty.

Sorry, I don't agree.  There are alternatives to guns.  Yes, police can be harmed in the 
line of duty, but, in most cases it isn't because of what they "thought" they saw, it's 
what they never saw.  It's my opinion that police resort to guns too fast.  Lots of young 
children getting shot because some policeman "thought he saw or heard something".  Answer 
this question, "what makes a police man's life any more important than anyone else?"

>> I know they're trying to claim that the guy that shot up the theatre in Colorado was 
>> "disturbed", but, I have to wonder if he would have acted the same is everyone in the 
>> theatre was also armed, and trained.  What the hell, MAD (a truly obscene concept) worked 
>> for the 1960s to the 1990s.
> 
>    If you think that's a good idea, I invite you to contact the Army and
>    get an all expenses paid tour of Afghanistan.  Yeah, I know, they
>    call it a "tour of duty", but you can just relax.  Almost everybody
>    there is armed, so it should be real quiet and peacefull for you.

Sorry, took them up on their offer back in 1966-1969.  Not stupid enough for another.  At 
least today the soldiers get a slightly better welcome back.

This is c.o.v, sorry I mentioned anything, can we get back on topic?