On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:41:20 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:57:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:03:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Which implies that we're either going to vastly suppress gun ownership, or
we're going to have to live with high rates of gun crime, at least until the
cows come home -- and maybe until we're drinking synthetic milk and eating
soyburgers, and there are no more cows. Sooner or later the comforting
myths, such as the idea that carrying guns suppresses crime, will run out of
steam, and we'll have to face the bald fact that we can have guns or
substantially lower violent crime rates, but not both.

A more direct approach would be to vastly suppress criminal use of
guns in the commission of other crimes.

Everybody I know personally who carries is irrationally afraid of the
boogeyman. They'll never admit to that fear, yet will spend untold
hours yakking with others of like mind about the stopping power of
this or that caliber, or where one must drag the shot "perp" if
necessary in order to feign legality. Crime could be reduced to zero,
they'll still carry. They'll keep guns handy at all times even if
there's a demonstrated risk of access by kids. They'll willingly and
obsessively remain captive to their fear. If you doubt any of it, or
want to test the pocket-knife analogy to those you know, then compare
some carry-types to normal be-prepared types. The latter equips for
what's likely, but the former prioritizes in order to assuage his
fear. Exhibits 1 through 1million, gummy's posts demonstrating that
his guns are more important to him than *everything* else. He lacks
the intelligence to put his fear in perspective, and would carry a
main and a backup piece full-time even if he lived on Sesame Street.

Cookie monsters be there ya know. Reckon a guy'd wanna be packin' at
least a .454 Casul in cookie monster country. Tawk about stopping
power...

A brief anecdote - a guy I know lost everything he owned in a fire. He
had lots to cry about, but it was the loss of his guns that he took
the hardest. Which was nuts because his guns were all old junk anyway.
They weren't worth but a fraction of the value of his home and tools.
All things considered he didn't need a single gun, and doing without
one was the least of his problems. His situation was pretty desperate:
no home, no job, no driver's license, no prospects. It wasn't all that
surprising that he turned to crime. You'll never guess what he got
caught stealing... Ironically, now that he's in prison, at least he
has something real to be afraid of.

Perhaps you need to meet some different people. I know several
folks that have carry permits and are skilled with handguns. They
include engineers, scientists, research managers, an ICU nurse, good
neighbors and two grandmothers but none like those you describe.
I can list a half-dozen injury-shootings in my rural neighborhood.
Most involved alcohol. Two of the victims (one dead) was shot by his
own gun. There's no question where the real risk is.

In your rural neighborhood, right? Duly noted and thanks, I'll avoid
it on my walks.

Guns are like freon - once sold it's highly likely to end up in the atmosphere. The
risk may be small, but your pocket popper is more likely to someday
end up in a schoolyard than to be used to save your life.

Is that because the grip is small enough for a 12-year-old to grasp?
Or is it just because guns are like freon?

Multiply that by the millions of these things that start out as "protection",
and it's obvious why the US has such a problem with the issue.

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

Not that it's limited to guns, the basic problem is that everyone wants to
do whatever they want, and too many rationalize away their
responsibility when things don't go as they intended, no matter how
predictable the consequences.

I've also noticed that people tend to want to do what they want to do.
Disgraceful!