Joseph Meehan wrote:
The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that about
1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year. Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been involved
in such a situation. It is not a question I have asked many people
but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at least one
personal friend or family member who was one of the people involved
and I know of none.
I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe
them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider their
numbers as reliable.
I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me only
once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.


I've been involved in DGUs three times in seven years (interestingly, two of
those were in Home Depot's parking lots).

You might check he
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

Harry K wrote in
:

On Feb 5, 8:01*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote
innews:O18qj.9992$EK3.5873@trndny0
4:





Joseph Meehan wrote:
* *The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it
is

exactly non-biased.

* *A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

* *If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that
abo
ut
1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you
think 'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance
of being in one of those situations. ... *My brother is older so
while it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been
involved in such a situation. *It is not a question I have asked
many people but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at
least one personal friend or family member who was one of the
people involved and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. *Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to
believe them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider
their numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own
suppostions.

* *I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me
on
ly
once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those
faced by aggressors who display a gun?

Perhaps Meehan is one of those who if it hasn't happened to them,then
it doesn't happen to anyone else?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But he says it _did_ happen to him but "it ended nicely".

Harry K


he's very lucky,then.
Those six women in the Lane Bryant store weren't so fortunate.
5 died,one was wounded,played dead.

Besides,I question Meehan about the gun used "in an aggressive manner,used
against me". How was it "used"? For what purpose? robbery?
Was a police report filed? It's a crime to threaten another with a
firearm.(at minimum,brandishing)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:59:09 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

This is not directed at you alone, Joe, by any means, but this OFF
TOPIC thread has been going in circles for weeks now. Please either
stop participating, or take it to private email and leave
alt.home.repair alone. I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Thank you

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were appointed head of the
group?

Steve

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:25:42 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:59:09 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

This is not directed at you alone, Joe, by any means, but this OFF
TOPIC thread has been going in circles for weeks now. Please either
stop participating, or take it to private email and leave
alt.home.repair alone. I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Thank you

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were appointed head of the
group?

Steve


I imagine you are both drunk and absent most of the time.

I think for a fact that your imagination is the last functioning portion of
your brain. If it were not so, you could see the "Subject: Take yer
gun to the mall" and recognize that it is an old thread, one you do not wish
to participate in, and punch the down arrow, or use that little mouse
thingy.

But since you can't do those complex tasks that require that level of motor
skills, I guess it is good that you still have your imagination.

I shall be pulling for you to recover.

Stove

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news:O18qj.9992$EK3.5873@trndny04...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that
about 1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you
think 'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

As I understand the term as it is used on that web site, it would
mean that a gun was used by someone who was threatened by someone
else who did no did not have a gun and that the one being threatened
used a gun ,directly or indirectly, to defend themselves from that
threat.

OK. That has happened to me, and two others that I know. In each situation,
simply displaying the gun had the effect of making the aggressors
immediately stop, turn around, and go away.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been
involved in such a situation. It is not a question I have asked
many people but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at
least one personal friend or family member who was one of the
people involved and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

No I was not involved in that situation, unless you consider two
unarmed government tax agents the ones threatening a corporate tax
payer. The specific case involved a taxpayer who had not filed a
return which was required, even though the taxpayer did not owe any
tax. Neither myself nor my fellow agent carried a gun or inferred we
did.

Then why did you say " I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used
against me only once. I was not armed and it ended nicely." ?

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe
them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider their
numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own
suppostions.

See above, it appears you misunderstood the situation.

You specifically stated, "I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used
against me only once. I was not armed and it ended nicely." Based on what
you stated, and you provided no other information, there was no
misunderstanding.

I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me
only once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those
faced by aggressors who display a gun?

No.

OK.


In my entire life, I have never carried a gun, and frankly I have
never felt truly threatened by anyone.

But you are not 'everyone'. I don't pretend to understand, nor do I
particulary care to understand, why you have evaluated all the factors in
your life and have come to the conclusion that you have 'never felt truly
threatened by anyone'. That is your business and it is your right to not
carry a gun or any other weapon.

I have never felt truly threatened in everyday life by anyone in general. I
have had three occasions in my entire adult life where (outside of military
combat) I have been unexpectedly and specifically threatened, one of those
times which justified displaying my handgun in order to discourage an
inevitable mugging by three thugs.

I do not live with the thought or the feeling that I will be threatened; nor
do I expect that to occur. I carry my gun because of the unexpected. Much as
I have a backup generator for unexpected power outages, and a big, honkin'
snowblower for those unexpectedly aggressive snowstorms. My handgun is a
preparation not for what I expect to be a normal occurance; it is for the
unexpected.

I did witness an attempted armed attack on a armored car, a couple
of purse snatches an armed robbery of a restaurant , and a few other
events,

So even by your own witness, unexpected violence occurs in daily life.

but I personally was never really threatened and I would have
never felt safer with a gun under any of those situations. Frankly I
believe I would have been less safe if I had a gun and had attempted
to use it.

I don't have anything to say to that, Joseph. I will n is far ot judge why,
in the face of all those things you have been exposed to, you continue to
take the approach you do. However, in my opinion, your mindset of doing
nothing more than hoping for a good outcome when confronted by violent
aggressors is far more dangerous to society as it allows anarchist and
criminals to be in control of your personal safety. I choose to do what I
can to take control of and be responsible for my personal protection.
Moreover, I will aggresively oppose those, like yourself, who wish to deny
me my Natural Right to do so.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, wrote:

I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Then you arrive an want a person to stop responding. Read further on
the next thread an buy shoes or what's slammed into the group.

Joseph! Write all you want. I want you to buy a gun. Don't let someone
tell you when to leave a thread.

Change the thread to home gun safety cabinets, and you will be happy?

I don't like your sailboat, so what!


Oren
--

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:c8rqj.13774$FW3.12603@trndny03:

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news:O18qj.9992$EK3.5873@trndny04...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is
exactly non-biased.

A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to
approximately 2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that
about 1 of every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a
defensive manor each year.

To clarify for us what you think is meant by DGU, tell us what you
think 'using a gun in a defensive manor (manner)' means.

As I understand the term as it is used on that web site, it would
mean that a gun was used by someone who was threatened by someone
else who did no did not have a gun and that the one being threatened
used a gun ,directly or indirectly, to defend themselves from that
threat.

DGUs also can and do involve incidents where the attacker has a gun,implies
they have a gun,or another item usable as a weapon;knife,icepick,club,auto.
Even the display of a toy or BB gun that closely resembles a real gun.
POLICE have shot and killed people wielding toy and BB guns,and they were
judged legitimate DGUs.

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?
If you merely display it and the threat turns and flees,it still was a
direct use of the gun.
That it was not fired is irrelevant,the threat was ended BY HAVING THE GUN.

Or does Meehan just -claim- he has a gun,and considers that an "indirect
DGU"???


OK. That has happened to me, and two others that I know. In each
situation, simply displaying the gun had the effect of making the
aggressors immediately stop, turn around, and go away.

Still a DIRECT use of the gun in the DGU.

Carry that a little further, I am 60
years old, that would mean I should have had a bout a 50% chance of
being in one of those situations. ... My brother is older so while
it is higher (like about 75%) that one of us would have been
involved in such a situation. It is not a question I have asked
many people but it would seem that I would have likely heard of at
least one personal friend or family member who was one of the
people involved and I know of none.

And yet you say below that you were involved in such a situation.

No I was not involved in that situation, unless you consider two
unarmed government tax agents the ones threatening a corporate tax
payer. The specific case involved a taxpayer who had not filed a
return which was required, even though the taxpayer did not owe any
tax. Neither myself nor my fellow agent carried a gun or inferred we
did.

If a "taxpayer" threatened a gov't agent -with a gun-,that IS a felony,and
the threatener would have been arrested.(and should have been arrested!)
ANY gov't agent would have called police for that sort of threat.
And there were TWO gov't agents,according to Meehan.
Definitely a corrobating witness.
To let such a thing slide is foolish,as the next person may get shot by the
"taxpayer".

This leads me to believe the "threat" was imaginary;non-existant.


Then why did you say " I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor,
used against me only once. I was not armed and it ended nicely." ?

I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same
facts really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you
want to believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to
believe them, it is even easier, but for me, I would not consider
their numbers as reliable.

Yet by your own example below, you seem to contradict your own
suppostions.

See above, it appears you misunderstood the situation.

You specifically stated, "I have had a gun used in an aggressive
manor, used against me only once. I was not armed and it ended
nicely." Based on what you stated, and you provided no other
information, there was no misunderstanding.

I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me
only once. I was not armed and it ended nicely.

Do you believe that DGU (defensive gun use) only applies to those
faced by aggressors who display a gun?

No.

OK.


In my entire life, I have never carried a gun, and frankly I have
never felt truly threatened by anyone.

And yet Meehan says he was "threatened" as a gov't tax agent by a taxpayer
presumably brandishing a gun....Either it was a threat,or it wasn't.
Which is it???

something doesn't add up.


But you are not 'everyone'. I don't pretend to understand, nor do I
particulary care to understand, why you have evaluated all the factors
in your life and have come to the conclusion that you have 'never felt
truly threatened by anyone'. That is your business and it is your
right to not carry a gun or any other weapon.

I have never felt truly threatened in everyday life by anyone in
general. I have had three occasions in my entire adult life where
(outside of military combat) I have been unexpectedly and specifically
threatened, one of those times which justified displaying my handgun
in order to discourage an inevitable mugging by three thugs.

I do not live with the thought or the feeling that I will be
threatened; nor do I expect that to occur. I carry my gun because of
the unexpected. Much as I have a backup generator for unexpected power
outages, and a big, honkin' snowblower for those unexpectedly
aggressive snowstorms. My handgun is a preparation not for what I
expect to be a normal occurance; it is for the unexpected.

I did witness an attempted armed attack on a armored car, a couple
of purse snatches an armed robbery of a restaurant , and a few other
events,

So even by your own witness, unexpected violence occurs in daily life.

Yet Meehan evidently feels that they don't warrant people being able to
defend themselves with a firearm.They should just be nice,compliant victims
and depend on the criminal's good intentions! Ludicrous,and pathetic.

but I personally was never really threatened and I would have
never felt safer with a gun under any of those situations. Frankly I
believe I would have been less safe if I had a gun and had attempted
to use it.

I don't have anything to say to that, Joseph. I will n is far ot judge
why, in the face of all those things you have been exposed to, you
continue to take the approach you do. However, in my opinion, your
mindset of doing nothing more than hoping for a good outcome when
confronted by violent aggressors is far more dangerous to society as
it allows anarchist and criminals to be in control of your personal
safety. I choose to do what I can to take control of and be
responsible for my personal protection. Moreover, I will aggresively
oppose those, like yourself, who wish to deny me my Natural Right to
do so.




For Meehan;

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:19:05 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:25:42 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:59:09 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

This is not directed at you alone, Joe, by any means, but this OFF
TOPIC thread has been going in circles for weeks now. Please either
stop participating, or take it to private email and leave
alt.home.repair alone. I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Thank you

I'm sorry. Was I drunk or absent the day you were appointed head of the
group?

Steve


I imagine you are both drunk and absent most of the time.

I think for a fact that your imagination is the last functioning portion
of
your brain. If it were not so, you could see the "Subject: Take yer
gun to the mall" and recognize that it is an old thread, one you do not
wish
to participate in, and punch the down arrow, or use that little mouse
thingy.

But since you can't do those complex tasks that require that level of
motor
skills, I guess it is good that you still have your imagination.

I shall be pulling for you to recover.

Stove


You are definitely pulling "something", Stove.

I am definitely pulling for you, and for the reasons stated. Let us know
how you progress.

Stove (formerly Steve, but renamed by SpelChek)

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


interesting;she shot an unarmed person THREE times.
(with a SHOTGUN! didn't the 1st shot put him down?)
some prosecutors would have her charged with either murder or attempted
murder.

However,it -still- was a DIRECT use of a firearm in a DGU.

Perhaps you could keep us updated as to how this all finishes up.
Got any links to this in a Vegas paper?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


interesting;she shot an unarmed person THREE times.
(with a SHOTGUN! didn't the 1st shot put him down?)
some prosecutors would have her charged with either murder or attempted
murder.

However,it -still- was a DIRECT use of a firearm in a DGU.

Perhaps you could keep us updated as to how this all finishes up.
Got any links to this in a Vegas paper?

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=7810795

Video Icon is red on the left.

Story is recent and subject to change.


Oren
--

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

Actually,from what I read,one woman was totally nude.


One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


I Googled and found the Vegas news reports.It turns out there were more
than one shotgun and the victims were entriely justified in shooting the
invaders.It's a shame she didn't kill the robber-rapist.

I saw no word on the 2nd suspect that managed to flee.He was bitten on an
ear,a chunk taken out.Way to go.

It angered me that LV police were downplaying the victims fighting
back,that victims should comply with robbers.
These people would very likely have been murdered after the rapes were
finished.Like the recent Chicago Lane Bryant murders or the Indianapolis
home invasion murders.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oren wrote in
m:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


interesting;she shot an unarmed person THREE times.
(with a SHOTGUN! didn't the 1st shot put him down?)
some prosecutors would have her charged with either murder or attempted
murder.

However,it -still- was a DIRECT use of a firearm in a DGU.

Perhaps you could keep us updated as to how this all finishes up.
Got any links to this in a Vegas paper?

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=7810795

Video Icon is red on the left.

Story is recent and subject to change.


Oren
--


Thanks,I already Googled and found it,but I appreciate the fast response.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 7 Feb 2008 02:20:16 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas - via
a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar and
no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

Actually,from what I read,one woman was totally nude.

"One of the girls completely nude managed to grab a gun and shoot the
guy in the chest area and in the leg."



One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


I Googled and found the Vegas news reports.It turns out there were more
than one shotgun and the victims were entriely justified in shooting the
invaders.It's a shame she didn't kill the robber-rapist.

How can we award her for two shots?


I saw no word on the 2nd suspect that managed to flee.He was bitten on an
ear,a chunk taken out.Way to go.

It angered me that LV police were downplaying the victims fighting
back,that victims should comply with robbers.

Just a public service message, not applicable in all circumstances.
The cops know this.

These people would very likely have been murdered after the rapes were
finished.Like the recent Chicago Lane Bryant murders or the Indianapolis
home invasion murders.

Six years ago in Vegas; two off duty cops are shooting pool in an open
garage (door up). Two creeps approach and demand money. One shot dead
the other was cuffed and now doing time (last check)!


Oren
--

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:39:09 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

The referenced web page is ... well lets say I don't think it is exactly
non-biased.


Neither are gun grabbers, but unlike the gun grabbers, the
referenced website backs up its statistics with factual references.


A quick look at their first static:

"the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately
2.5 million per year"

If you do the numbers quickly, you will find that means that about 1 of
every 120 people have been involved in using a gun in a defensive manor each
year. Carry that a little further, I am 60 years old, that would mean I
should have had a bout a 50% chance of being in one of those situations.
... My brother is older so while it is higher (like about 75%) that one of
us would have been involved in such a situation. It is not a question I
have asked many people but it would seem that I would have likely heard of
at least one personal friend or family member who was one of the people
involved and I know of none.


Your personal story is only one of millions of other,
different ones.


I have no proof but it sure looks like they are stretching same facts
really really hard to get the results they want. Now if you want to
believe them, it is easy to do, if you don't want to believe them, it is
even easier, but for me, I would not consider their numbers as reliable.


Yet on that same page you claim is stretching the facts . . .


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html


we find this:


* * *


Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for
Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of
Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in
the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall,
1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among
the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave
New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and
maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary
Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and
Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz,
published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an
almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of
something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a
gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my
admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this
research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each
year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It
is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected.
We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey
does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and
Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck
and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and
the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like
their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault
their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in
advance and have done exceedingly well."


So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in
this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and
even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.


* * *


Well?


I have had a gun used in an aggressive manor, used against me only once.
I was not armed and it ended nicely.


Here you clearly contradict what you said above.

If anyone is "stretching" things here . . . :\

On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

The correct explanation/term (Imo) is Armed Sexual Assault!

Just me..

Oren
--

Oren wrote:
On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas -
via a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar
and no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making
the female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him three
times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the scene.


Oren
--


interesting;she shot an unarmed person THREE times.
(with a SHOTGUN! didn't the 1st shot put him down?)
some prosecutors would have her charged with either murder or
attempted murder.

However,it -still- was a DIRECT use of a firearm in a DGU.

Perhaps you could keep us updated as to how this all finishes up.
Got any links to this in a Vegas paper?

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=7810795

Video Icon is red on the left.

Story is recent and subject to change.

This is the part that ****es me off: "The police are very cautious not to
make this seem like a heroic act. They say fighting back can sometimes end
with the victims being more seriously hurt." I mean, what a buncha nerve.

What a croc O' crap. The quote shoulda read, "Relying on the police will
usually end with the victims more seriously hurt."
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote

What a croc O' crap. The quote shoulda read, "Relying on the police will
usually end with the victims more seriously hurt."
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I am a former resident of Las Vegas. Time and time again, domestic violence
cases ended in homicide. The poor woman had restraining order after
restraining order. Temporary protective order after temporary protective
order. And she ended up dead.

We had to home school my daughter in high school because of gang threats.
All they told us was, "If they harm your daughter, they will be in serious
trouble."

Does that mean they would have sent flowers to the funeral, too?

Cops have a lot to do. My daughter and her husband are POs. It's too bad
the way the liberals have hamstrung them into ineffectiveness. In the old
days, the cops beat the **** out of you if you smarted off. If you were a
wiseacre, they gave you a ride to the city limits. If you mouthed off, you
got a beating, too. If you couldn't understand that, came back into the
city, you were found dead in a dumpster, and no one even raised an eyebrow.
Or they never found you.

I could live with the old ways.

Steve

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making the
female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

The correct explanation/term (Imo) is Armed Sexual Assault!

Just me..

Oren
--

Technically, it's aggravated sexual assault.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
newsfwqj.3542$eD3.3290@trndny05:

Oren wrote:
On 7 Feb 2008 01:55:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On 7 Feb 2008 01:21:08 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

And HOW do you use a gun "indirectly" in a DGU?

Just to jump in. The other day two crooks enter a home in Vegas -
via a partially opened garage. Family was cooking outside.

Armed with a shotgun they pinned everyone to the floor, demanding
money and then ransacked the house. The intruders found one dollar
and no drugs (real intention).

The intruder used the shotgun barrel in a provocative way - making
the female disrobe partially. Nearly a Rape!

sexual battery/assault,at a minimum.

One of the guys dropped his gun. She picked it up and shot him
three times (news pending).

She had no gun for defense; until the crook brought it to the
scene.


Oren
--


interesting;she shot an unarmed person THREE times.
(with a SHOTGUN! didn't the 1st shot put him down?)
some prosecutors would have her charged with either murder or
attempted murder.

However,it -still- was a DIRECT use of a firearm in a DGU.

Perhaps you could keep us updated as to how this all finishes up.
Got any links to this in a Vegas paper?

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=7810795

Video Icon is red on the left.

Story is recent and subject to change.

This is the part that ****es me off: "The police are very cautious not
to make this seem like a heroic act. They say fighting back can
sometimes end with the victims being more seriously hurt." I mean,
what a buncha nerve.

What a croc O' crap. The quote shoulda read, "Relying on the police
will usually end with the victims more seriously hurt."

it's called "call 911 and die".
Police are more of a cleanup act than any sort of "protection".

re home concerns;
In a natural disaster,police may not be able to come,may be busy
elsewhere,or may not want to("too risky").

People do not realize that they don't HAVE to respond to your 911 call.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Dave Bugg" wrote

What a croc O' crap. The quote shoulda read, "Relying on the police
will usually end with the victims more seriously hurt."
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I am a former resident of Las Vegas. Time and time again, domestic
violence cases ended in homicide. The poor woman had restraining
order after restraining order. Temporary protective order after
temporary protective order. And she ended up dead.

In Seminole County,Florida,the Seminole Sheriff's Dept.-recommended- that a
50 yr old woman who got a restraining order against a stalker *buy a
gun*,she did,a Deputy gave her 20 min of "training",and later,the stalker
showed up with a gun and a piece of rope,smashed thru her patio door,shot
her twice,and she still managed to get to her gun and killed the
stalker.She survived.She had only fired a few rounds in practice.

IMO,a restraining order is a nearly worthless piece of paper,you need to
BACK IT UP yourself,as police aren't going to be nearby or useful when the
Banned Person shows up.
It DOES make the legality of shooting the perp simpler.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 7, 4:36*am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Pisano" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:39:09 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
..

Yet on that same page you claim is stretching the facts . . .

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

we find this:

* * *

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among
the criminologists in this country. * ... What troubles me is the article
by Gary
Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and
Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz,
published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an
almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of
something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a
gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my
admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this
research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each
year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It
is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected.
We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey
does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and
Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck
and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and
the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like
their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault
their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in
advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in
this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and
even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.

* * *

Well?

* * I disagree. *The methodology used in the study was very poor. *It rates
as anecdotal and very poor statistical work.

* * Again I will point out that the fact it is anecdotal and lacks good
statistical evidence does not indicate that the premise is not valid, on
that it is poorly supported by that data.

* * I find the data interesting, but I would like to see some really good
studies. *It appears the data to do those studies has never been collected.

--
Joseph Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

looks to me, and I am sure the others, that you will accept nothing
that does not back up _your_ bias.

Harry K

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:50:24 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Dave Bugg" wrote

What a croc O' crap. The quote shoulda read, "Relying on the police will
usually end with the victims more seriously hurt."
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

I am a former resident of Las Vegas. Time and time again, domestic violence
cases ended in homicide. The poor woman had restraining order after
restraining order. Temporary protective order after temporary protective
order. And she ended up dead.

We had to home school my daughter in high school because of gang threats.
All they told us was, "If they harm your daughter, they will be in serious
trouble."

Does that mean they would have sent flowers to the funeral, too?

Cops have a lot to do. My daughter and her husband are POs. It's too bad
the way the liberals have hamstrung them into ineffectiveness. In the old
days, the cops beat the **** out of you if you smarted off. If you were a
wiseacre, they gave you a ride to the city limits. If you mouthed off, you
got a beating, too. If you couldn't understand that, came back into the
city, you were found dead in a dumpster, and no one even raised an eyebrow.
Or they never found you.

I could live with the old ways.

Steve



You could always move to Iraq.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 4:36 am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote: ...

looks to me, and I am sure the others, that you will accept nothing
that does not back up _your_ bias.

Harry K

Or you are not willing to really look for and see the weakness in
the studies. At least I am willing to acknowledge that there is no
good evidence supporting either side and further I don't support the
elimination of gun ownership based on poor data. I would think most
people would consider that fair and reasonable. If my bias was all
that strong, why would I not support additional gun control?

By your own words throughout this thread, you have said you support
disarming citizens. It is only recently that you claim to be weighing the
'evidence'. Beside that, I am pretty sure those of us who support the
Constitution find all of your posturing around 'data' -- in deciding whether
or not to support the right to keep and bear arms -- pretty damned amusing.

I can't wait for the discussion of what you consider relevant 'data' in your
consideration of whether or not to support the right of individual free
speech.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:40:06 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:09:55 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, wrote:

I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Then you arrive an want a person to stop responding. Read further on
the next thread an buy shoes or what's slammed into the group.

Joseph! Write all you want. I want you to buy a gun. Don't let someone
tell you when to leave a thread.

Change the thread to home gun safety cabinets, and you will be happy?

I don't like your sailboat, so what!


Oren

I don't post about my sailboat here because that would be off topic, just like
this thread, nitwit.

Live on the boat and that will make sailboats on topic.


There must be an awful lot of usenet newbies here, including you, who don't
understand the basics of usenet. One of the basics is that if you are compelled
to start an off topic thread because you are too dull to find an appropriate
place to post it, it is considered common courtesy to put either OT or OFF TOPIC
in the subject line so that other folks don't have to keep adding individual
filters for each new off topic post. I have filters set to filter out based on
those two widely accepted terms, as do other experienced usenet participants. I
ASKED Joseph, who is usually a very positive contributor, to rethink his
participation in this bull****.


What you said:

*Please either stop participating, or take it to private email and
leave alt.home.repair alone.*

Plus it was not directly to Joseph, alone!

Write too

Usually this address may bounce one time; but, please try again.


ps. I'm a gun owner, and have been pretty much all of my life.

If you took a sailboat to sea without a gun, I would call you a
nitwit!!

Oren
--

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:50:24 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

Cops have a lot to do. My daughter and her husband are POs. It's too bad
the way the liberals have hamstrung them into ineffectiveness. In the old
days, the cops beat the **** out of you if you smarted off. If you were a
wiseacre, they gave you a ride to the city limits. If you mouthed off, you
got a beating, too. If you couldn't understand that, came back into the
city, you were found dead in a dumpster, and no one even raised an eyebrow.
Or they never found you.

I could live with the old ways.

"Cool Hand Luke"

Lettuce and Water are long gone from the prisoner menu. Even bland
peas and carrots (no salt, no butter) have to be approved by a
nutritionist. Long gone are the days of such a diet. In the 70's,
prisoners were force feed to keep them alive (hunger striker's)

Today. *Calculated Use of Force* is used. As the threat escalates, so
does the necessary force.

Old days are gone.... they were really fun


Oren
--

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

I disagree. The methodology used in the study was very poor. It rates
as anecdotal and very poor statistical work.

What *would* convince you? I get the feeling that if God Himself stood before
you and told you you were wrong about this, you'd tell God He's full of ****.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You are a blind man.

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:09:46 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

I disagree. The methodology used in the study was very poor. It rates
as anecdotal and very poor statistical work.

What *would* convince you? I get the feeling that if God Himself stood before
you and told you you were wrong about this, you'd tell God He's full of ****.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You are a blind man.

He might be healed, yet. Joseph is about to turn around here. It
should be graceful!


Oren
--

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:19:21 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote

If you took a sailboat to sea without a gun, I would call you a
nitwit!!

Oren

Google Mossberg 500 Mariner. A damn fine defensive weapon, and in stainless
steel for the marine environment.

Some people would say, "What ever under heaven would one need a gun for on a
boat?"

In maritime parlance, they're known as "prey".

Steve


Pirates, of course.

In '89 I took the bride on a three day fishing trip into the Dry
Tortugas - off Key West. Fifty people I never met. Packed my pistol
and kept my mouth shut.

A couple of guys bragged (brewsky influenced) they were packing and
the Captain confiscated the weapons.

I may have been the only person armed after that, but the Captain
didn't know. Had a brew and sold the fish too pay for the trip

This same pistol; is my favorite one today.


Oren
--

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:13:57 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

3) Off duty cops should be required to comply with robbers, so they don't
get hurt.

Are you being funny? They have an Oath; on or off duty!

Authority doesn't end at shift change.

Oren
--

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:09:55 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, wrote:

I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Then you arrive an want a person to stop responding. Read further on
the next thread an buy shoes or what's slammed into the group.

Joseph! Write all you want. I want you to buy a gun. Don't let someone
tell you when to leave a thread.

Change the thread to home gun safety cabinets, and you will be happy?

I don't like your sailboat, so what!


Oren

I don't post about my sailboat here because that would be off topic, just
like
this thread, nitwit.

There must be an awful lot of usenet newbies here, including you, who
don't
understand the basics of usenet. One of the basics is that if you are
compelled
to start an off topic thread because you are too dull to find an
appropriate
place to post it, it is considered common courtesy to put either OT or OFF
TOPIC
in the subject line so that other folks don't have to keep adding
individual
filters for each new off topic post. I have filters set to filter out
based on
those two widely accepted terms, as do other experienced usenet
participants. I
ASKED Joseph, who is usually a very positive contributor, to rethink his
participation in this bull****.

ps. I'm a gun owner, and have been pretty much all of my life.

And you act like it's your first week in Usenet.

Steve

"Oren" wrote

If you took a sailboat to sea without a gun, I would call you a
nitwit!!

Oren

Google Mossberg 500 Mariner. A damn fine defensive weapon, and in stainless
steel for the marine environment.

Some people would say, "What ever under heaven would one need a gun for on a
boat?"

In maritime parlance, they're known as "prey".

Steve

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:12:33 -0500, wrote:

Feel free to go **** yourself at your earliest convenience, asswipe.

You are brilliant, but not worth your weight in salt.

Just the NYM, tells me your are not an Ole' Salt - much less a Conch!

Leave the thread, if that is all you have to say. Same way you came in
here! Noting to say!!!!

Any Usenet rules on that?

Oren
--

Joseph Meehan wrote:
In my entire life, I have never carried a gun, and frankly I have never
felt truly threatened by anyone.


You've missed out on one of the thrills in life then. I've carried a gun off
and on as the situation warranted and have had my gun save me twice from being
killed. In one incident, the fellow had a baseball bat and was promising to bat
my brains out of the county. In the second incident, a fellow pulled a hunting
knife on me. In both situations all I had to do was open my jacket so they
could see what I had for them.

Nothing else was required. Nobody got hurt. The police were never notified.
That was the end of it. OTOH, had I not had my pistol with me, it might have
been the end of *me*.

Frankly, I was within my rights to shoot both of those guys, but why should I?
I got the situation chilled satisfactorily without even having to draw my
weapon.

For the record, I carry legally with a CCW.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:14:34 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:09:55 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, wrote:

I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Then you arrive an want a person to stop responding. Read further on
the next thread an buy shoes or what's slammed into the group.

Joseph! Write all you want. I want you to buy a gun. Don't let someone
tell you when to leave a thread.

Change the thread to home gun safety cabinets, and you will be happy?

I don't like your sailboat, so what!


Oren

I don't post about my sailboat here because that would be off topic,
just
like
this thread, nitwit.

There must be an awful lot of usenet newbies here, including you, who
don't
understand the basics of usenet. One of the basics is that if you are
compelled
to start an off topic thread because you are too dull to find an
appropriate
place to post it, it is considered common courtesy to put either OT or
OFF
TOPIC
in the subject line so that other folks don't have to keep adding
individual
filters for each new off topic post. I have filters set to filter out
based on
those two widely accepted terms, as do other experienced usenet
participants. I
ASKED Joseph, who is usually a very positive contributor, to rethink his
participation in this bull****.

ps. I'm a gun owner, and have been pretty much all of my life.

And you act like it's your first week in Usenet.

Steve


Feel free to go **** yourself at your earliest convenience, asswipe.

Now why should I do that when YOU are the one posting all the drivel?
Kvetching about a thread that has been around long enough for anyone with a
room temperature IQ to know the content and subject thereof. And
instructing newbies to usenet as if you are an authority. A lot of them who
haven't even been here a week have a better grasp of it than you, and you
have been here too long. But I'm sure you will come up with some excuse,
lame as it is.

Oh, yeah. There's this thing called BLOCK SENDER. I'd explain it to you,
but I loathe wasting my time on pompous pedantic pricks.

Steve

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

I disagree. The methodology used in the study was very poor. It
rates
as anecdotal and very poor statistical work.

What *would* convince you? I get the feeling that if God Himself stood
before
you and told you you were wrong about this, you'd tell God He's full of
****.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You are a blind man.

Thank you for your kind words.

I would hope I would recognize God if He showed up, but based on so many
stories in Bible, many have not. However I doubt if I would say he was full
of ****, I have not even said that about you. I just believe you knowingly
or not are not willing to look at the facts (or lack of them) with a clear
eye. It is not an easy thing to do, for me or for you.

That's pretty funny, really, coming from the only participant in this thread
who has consistently refused to recognize any facts that conflict with his own
a priori biases against guns (i.e. yourself).

I repeat the question: What *would* convince you?

I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas that
conflict with yours. That often can lead one down the wrong track. I has
happened more than once to me.

And it's happening again. You've already made up your mind, and refuse to see
any evidence that conflicts with the conclusions you've already reached.
Anything contradicting your already-established beliefs you label as "flawed"
or "unconvincing".

Like I said... there is none so blind as he who will not see.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news:%dIqj.9942$bs4.4669@trndny01...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
... By your own words throughout this thread, you have said you
support disarming citizens. It is only recently that you claim to be
weighing the 'evidence'.

I doubt if I ever put it that way, but I...

Oh fer cryin' out loud shaking head

did have a gut feeling
that gun control would make life safer. After doing some research
and reading some of the references suggested here, I have come to a
slightly different view. I expect the available evidence to support
additional gun control, but what I found failed to provide that
support. At the same time I found that the available data also fails
to support the theory that private ownership of guns provides any
better security.

And my personal experience begs to differ.

Beside that, I am pretty sure those of us who support the
Constitution find all of your posturing around 'data' -- in deciding
whether or not to support the right to keep and bear arms -- pretty
damned amusing.

Personally I find all this constitutional stuff silly.

Of course you do.

First I
believe (I may well be proved wrong, but as of now the case is not
settled.) that the interpretation of the constitution that so many
gun supporters rely on is not what they think it is and will not
support their case.

Belief is such a strong argument.

I have no interest in arguing it, I will leave
that up to the legal types.

Of course you will.

Of course even if I am wrong, that
Constitutions has procedures to correct any such error. :-)

Uh, huh. I can't wait for the proposed amendment.

I can't wait for the discussion of what you consider relevant 'data'
in your consideration of whether or not to support the right of
individual free speech.

????? It seems we both are exercising that right.

Whooooosh.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:30:57 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

Joseph Meehan wrote:
In my entire life, I have never carried a gun, and frankly I have never
felt truly threatened by anyone.


You've missed out on one of the thrills in life then. I've carried a gun off
and on as the situation warranted and have had my gun save me twice from being
killed. In one incident, the fellow had a baseball bat and was promising to bat
my brains out of the county. In the second incident, a fellow pulled a hunting
knife on me. In both situations all I had to do was open my jacket so they
could see what I had for them.

Nothing else was required. Nobody got hurt. The police were never notified.
That was the end of it. OTOH, had I not had my pistol with me, it might have
been the end of *me*.

Frankly, I was within my rights to shoot both of those guys, but why should I?
I got the situation chilled satisfactorily without even having to draw my
weapon.

For the record, I carry legally with a CCW.

Glad you are safe. Weapons pulled (twice - two times!) and you still
had your pistol in the jacket?

I cannot see myself just flashing a gun. I will not show it until I
intend to hit the target.

The predator can see clearly down the barrel.


Oren
--

SteveB wrote:
"Oren" wrote

If you took a sailboat to sea without a gun, I would call you a
nitwit!!

Oren

Google Mossberg 500 Mariner. A damn fine defensive weapon, and in stainless
steel for the marine environment.

Some people would say, "What ever under heaven would one need a gun for on a
boat?"

In maritime parlance, they're known as "prey".

Affirm on that. A family friend lived on a boat in the VI for several
years. Both in the marina and afloat, pretty much all the non-tourist
boats had weapons. Open-water pirates (aka druggies looking for a craft)
were not common, but far from unknown. But there was a LOT of 2-legged
scum hanging around the harbors, and people who would cruise the more
isolated areas around the islands, looking for targets of opportunity
anchored in a cove or other isolated area for a semi-private retreat.
(Hard to get a girl in the mood when the next slip is ten feet away.
Like trying to get lucky at a KOA campground, he said.)

Anyway, along with the shotgun, he also had a stainless mini-14, for the
better range it offered. Best not to have the bad guys actually able to
get on board, if you can avoid it. I have a mossberg 500 myself, in
(cheap) blue. Just long enough to be legal. Even with 00 buck, not
really a precision weapon, more of a firehose. Great in the same room,
not so great at any distance.

aem sends...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:40:38 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:14:34 -0800, "SteveB"

wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:09:55 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:06:32 -0500, wrote:

I have nothing against the occasional off topic
thread if it is of wide interest to the group, but this thread has
only 3 or 4 participants and has long outlived any possible
usefulness.

Then you arrive an want a person to stop responding. Read further on
the next thread an buy shoes or what's slammed into the group.

Joseph! Write all you want. I want you to buy a gun. Don't let someone
tell you when to leave a thread.

Change the thread to home gun safety cabinets, and you will be happy?

I don't like your sailboat, so what!


Oren

I don't post about my sailboat here because that would be off topic,
just
like
this thread, nitwit.

There must be an awful lot of usenet newbies here, including you, who
don't
understand the basics of usenet. One of the basics is that if you are
compelled
to start an off topic thread because you are too dull to find an
appropriate
place to post it, it is considered common courtesy to put either OT or
OFF
TOPIC
in the subject line so that other folks don't have to keep adding
individual
filters for each new off topic post. I have filters set to filter out
based on
those two widely accepted terms, as do other experienced usenet
participants. I
ASKED Joseph, who is usually a very positive contributor, to rethink
his
participation in this bull****.

ps. I'm a gun owner, and have been pretty much all of my life.

And you act like it's your first week in Usenet.

Steve


Feel free to go **** yourself at your earliest convenience, asswipe.

Now why should I do that when YOU are the one posting all the drivel?
Kvetching about a thread that has been around long enough for anyone with
a
room temperature IQ to know the content and subject thereof. And
instructing newbies to usenet as if you are an authority. A lot of them
who
haven't even been here a week have a better grasp of it than you, and you
have been here too long. But I'm sure you will come up with some excuse,
lame as it is.

Oh, yeah. There's this thing called BLOCK SENDER. I'd explain it to you,
but I loathe wasting my time on pompous pedantic pricks.

Steve


So I guess you haven't talked to your father in a while, shortbus.

I talk to him all the time. He died in 1994.

Steve