Joseph Meehan wrote:

It is foolish to continue to argue without data. If you have good
data you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment. However I believe we have reached the end of useful
discussion of the issue until new better data is made available.

You don't seem to get it, Joseph; we don't hold you to be the arbiter of
what constitutes 'good' data. You can argue til you're blue in the face that
the data doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient for whatever reason you wish to
rationalize, but we don't care. Feel free to continue to be anti-gun; feel
free to attend the next Brady Gun Control meeting or attend the Million Mom
PMS march because no one cares. You reject the data for spurious and
self-serving reasons, and I don't care.

Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what I
believe and what I know. They are very different statements. You
seem to have confused the two.

BWAAA---HAAAA!!!! That is a big, freekin' laugh, Joseph. You don't think
you have left a written trail in this thread which demonstrates how you have
bobbed and weaved and have appeared contradictory and confused? Take the
time and call up this whole thread from its beginning and re-read it.

If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

OK.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:04:58 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Off duty cops don't live the same lives as we do. Many have made a lot
of enemies in there time. They and their families have been targets. They
also have certain duties even when "off" duty as well as training that few
others have.

NV has three Categories of Peace Officers: (I, II, & III) as I
understand it.

Cat I has unlimited arrest authority. (can't use a choke hold or
racial profiling)

Cat II and III is regarding Bailiffs, School Police and Correctional
Officers and other law enforcement officers. I think they have limited
jurisdiction and authority.

You can be charged with failing to assist a police officer when
commanded to do so.

"Wait Officer! Are you on duty?! No I'm off duty, just making a
citizen's arrest."

Oren
--

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:23:18 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'm not being the least bit comical. Off duty cops are citizens just like
the rest of us. They live by the same traffic laws, the same laws about
building, zoning, and paying taxes. So, they should live by the same laws
about dealing with muggers. What works for the rest of the public should
work for off duty cops. Do not resist, and do not fight back. Cooperate
quietly.


Wasn't an off duty cop involved in a mall shooting; earlier in the
thread, that prevented further carnage. Expect him to stand by in
silence?


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
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

Oren
--

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
...
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 freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. I am fully aware of it. I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate otherwise.


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

Good question. I will not limit the possibilities, but what I would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data properly
analyzed. As I have explained many times, so far I have not been able to
locate that good statistical data. I doubt if it has been collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been told
where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is -- nothing.


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".

What good data have I refused to see?

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a conclusion on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that supports my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. I would hardly call that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.


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

I can't disagree with that.

It is foolish to continue to argue without data. If you have good data
you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and comment.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months ago. You
refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you decide to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what I
believe and what I know. They are very different statements. You seem to
have confused the two.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into your
sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something that's
already in the sphere of "what you believe".
If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

Yep.

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

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

Oren wrote in
:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:23:18 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'm not being the least bit comical. Off duty cops are citizens just
like the rest of us. They live by the same traffic laws, the same laws
about building, zoning, and paying taxes. So, they should live by the
same laws about dealing with muggers. What works for the rest of the
public should work for off duty cops. Do not resist, and do not fight
back. Cooperate quietly.


Wasn't an off duty cop involved in a mall shooting; earlier in the
thread, that prevented further carnage. Expect him to stand by in
silence?


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
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

Oren
--


he's playing "devil's advocate".
On one hand,cops are civilians given greater authority while ON duty,but
OTOH,are no different than ODCs when OFF-duty.
Thus,if we ODCs are expected to forgo self-defense and comply with
robbers/rapists/criminals and rely on THEIR "goodwill",then off-duty police
should also *take their own advice* and submit to criminals.


ODC= Ordinary Decent Citizen

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:Yi2rj.13$eU3.5@trndny04:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

It is foolish to continue to argue without data. If you have good
data you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment. However I believe we have reached the end of useful
discussion of the issue until new better data is made available.

You don't seem to get it, Joseph; we don't hold you to be the arbiter
of what constitutes 'good' data. You can argue til you're blue in the
face that the data doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient for whatever
reason you wish to rationalize, but we don't care. Feel free to
continue to be anti-gun; feel free to attend the next Brady Gun
Control meeting or attend the Million Mom PMS march because no one
cares. You reject the data for spurious and self-serving reasons, and
I don't care.

Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what
I
believe and what I know. They are very different statements. You
seem to have confused the two.

BWAAA---HAAAA!!!! That is a big, freekin' laugh, Joseph. You don't
think you have left a written trail in this thread which demonstrates
how you have bobbed and weaved and have appeared contradictory and
confused? Take the time and call up this whole thread from its
beginning and re-read it.

If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

OK.




Meehan claims to have greater knowledge about statistics and methodology
than the many criminologists who have peer-reviewed Kleck,Lott,Mustard,and
others.

LMAO.

He's simply in denial;he can't accept data that conflicts with his pre-
conceived worldview.

It's sad to watch him try to pose as openminded.

(and I suspect he readily accepts what "studies" anti-gun "researchers"
have published.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 9 Feb 2008 01:44:45 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

he's playing "devil's advocate".
On one hand,cops are civilians given greater authority while ON duty,but
OTOH,are no different than ODCs when OFF-duty.
Thus,if we ODCs are expected to forgo self-defense and comply with
robbers/rapists/criminals and rely on THEIR "goodwill",then off-duty police
should also *take their own advice* and submit to criminals.


ODC= Ordinary Decent Citizen

I'm not gonna let it happen, Captain!

No surrender.

Oren
--

On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
...
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 freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. *I am fully aware of it.. *I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate otherwise.

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

* *Good question. *I will not limit the possibilities, but what I would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data properly
analyzed. * As I have explained many times, so far I have not been able to
locate that good statistical data. *I doubt if it has been collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been told
where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is -- nothing.



* *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".

* *What good data have I refused to see? *

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a conclusion on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that supports my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. *I would hardly call that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.

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

* *I can't disagree with that.

* *It is foolish to continue to argue without data. *If you have good data
you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and comment.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months ago. You
refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you decide to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

* *Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what I
believe and what I know. *They are very different statements. You seem to
have confused the two.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into your
sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something that's
already in the sphere of "what you believe".

* *If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

Yep.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Example of AGU that I was involved with. Not really a direct threat
to us but it ended a problem.

We farmed on a ridge above Ahsaka, Idaho (directly above Dworshak
reservoir). We, and the neighbors had problems with jacklighters, a
couple of cows lost to them. One night we see a car coming down the
ridge shining a spotlight over the fields. Waited until they past our
entrance then Dad, me and my big brother took a stance across the
road. Road ended 1/2 mile down. On their way back they didn't
appreciated being stopped but with the three of us, all with deer
rifles, displayed they didn't have much choice. A polite warning that
we didn't want to see them back -ever- ended the jacklighting on our
ridge at least.

Harry K

On 9 Feb 2008 01:51:45 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:Yi2rj.13$eU3.5@trndny04:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

It is foolish to continue to argue without data. If you have good
data you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment. However I believe we have reached the end of useful
discussion of the issue until new better data is made available.

You don't seem to get it, Joseph; we don't hold you to be the arbiter
of what constitutes 'good' data. You can argue til you're blue in the
face that the data doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient for whatever
reason you wish to rationalize, but we don't care. Feel free to
continue to be anti-gun; feel free to attend the next Brady Gun
Control meeting or attend the Million Mom PMS march because no one
cares. You reject the data for spurious and self-serving reasons, and
I don't care.

Please carefully note the differences between when I explain what
I
believe and what I know. They are very different statements. You
seem to have confused the two.

BWAAA---HAAAA!!!! That is a big, freekin' laugh, Joseph. You don't
think you have left a written trail in this thread which demonstrates
how you have bobbed and weaved and have appeared contradictory and
confused? Take the time and call up this whole thread from its
beginning and re-read it.

If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe it.

OK.




Meehan claims to have greater knowledge about statistics and methodology
than the many criminologists who have peer-reviewed Kleck,Lott,Mustard,and
others.

LMAO.

He's simply in denial;he can't accept data that conflicts with his pre-
conceived worldview.

It's sad to watch him try to pose as openminded.

(and I suspect he readily accepts what "studies" anti-gun "researchers"
have published.)


I suspect he is simply trolling you.

Harry K wrote in
:

On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" sl
wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
...
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 freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. *I am fully aware of it
. *I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate
otherwise.

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

* *Good question. *I will not limit the possibilities, but what I
would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data
properly analyzed. * As I have explained many times, so far I have
not been able
to
locate that good statistical data. *I doubt if it has been
collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been
told

where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is --
noth
ing.



* *I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas
th
at
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".

* *What good data have I refused to see? *

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a
conclusion
on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that
supports
my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. *I would hardly
call
that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.

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

* *I can't disagree with that.

* *It is foolish to continue to argue without data. *If you have g
ood data
you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months
ago. You

refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of
the iss
ue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you
decide
to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

* *Please carefully note the differences between when I explain
what
I
believe and what I know. *They are very different statements. You
seem
to
have confused the two.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into
your sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something
that's already in the sphere of "what you believe".

* *If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe
it.


Yep.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Example of AGU that I was involved with. Not really a direct threat
to us but it ended a problem.

We farmed on a ridge above Ahsaka, Idaho (directly above Dworshak
reservoir). We, and the neighbors had problems with jacklighters, a
couple of cows lost to them. One night we see a car coming down the
ridge shining a spotlight over the fields. Waited until they past our
entrance then Dad, me and my big brother took a stance across the
road. Road ended 1/2 mile down. On their way back they didn't
appreciated being stopped but with the three of us, all with deer
rifles, displayed they didn't have much choice. A polite warning that
we didn't want to see them back -ever- ended the jacklighting on our
ridge at least.

Harry K


the Standard term is DGU;Defensive Gun Use.

IMO,you should have shot the poachers. In some places,it's legal.
Now,they just prey on someone else's herds.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 9 Feb 2008 03:34:55 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Harry K wrote in
:

On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" sl
wrote:





"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
...
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 freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. *I am fully aware of it
. *I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate
otherwise.

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

* *Good question. *I will not limit the possibilities, but what I
would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data
properly analyzed. * As I have explained many times, so far I have
not been able
to
locate that good statistical data. *I doubt if it has been
collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been
told

where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is --
noth
ing.



* *I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas
th
at
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".

* *What good data have I refused to see? *

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a
conclusion
on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that
supports
my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. *I would hardly
call
that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.

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

* *I can't disagree with that.

* *It is foolish to continue to argue without data. *If you have g
ood data
you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months
ago. You

refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of
the iss
ue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you
decide
to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

* *Please carefully note the differences between when I explain
what
I
believe and what I know. *They are very different statements. You
seem
to
have confused the two.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into
your sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something
that's already in the sphere of "what you believe".

* *If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe
it.


Yep.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Example of AGU that I was involved with. Not really a direct threat
to us but it ended a problem.

We farmed on a ridge above Ahsaka, Idaho (directly above Dworshak
reservoir). We, and the neighbors had problems with jacklighters, a
couple of cows lost to them. One night we see a car coming down the
ridge shining a spotlight over the fields. Waited until they past our
entrance then Dad, me and my big brother took a stance across the
road. Road ended 1/2 mile down. On their way back they didn't
appreciated being stopped but with the three of us, all with deer
rifles, displayed they didn't have much choice. A polite warning that
we didn't want to see them back -ever- ended the jacklighting on our
ridge at least.

Harry K


the Standard term is DGU;Defensive Gun Use.

IMO,you should have shot the poachers. In some places,it's legal.
Now,they just prey on someone else's herds.


Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

Pisano wrote:

Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

At my place.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:Knerj.112$R64.44@trndny03:

Pisano wrote:

Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

At my place.

In Texas.
They are allowed to use deadly force to protect their property,as is proper
and right.


what right do thieves have to someone else's property?
If one cannot own property,they are not truly free.

Besides,it's GOVERNMENT that is restricted from cruel and unusual
punishment,not the citizens.
Since the police are no credible threat to thieves,thieves should have to
take their chances against whatever the ODC property owner deals out when
trying to stop their thievery.If they get shot during a theft or
burglary,that is their own choice to take such a risk;they should bear the
consequences.
That is the way it used to be back before the
socialists/"Progressives"/bleeding hearts began enacting their politically
correct crap.
(caring more about the criminal than the ODCs.)

THEN,you will see such crimes diminish.

Let the CRIMINAL bear the risks,not the ODCs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 8, 7:34*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
Harry K wrote :





On Feb 8, 3:07*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" sl
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Joseph
Meehan" wrote:
...
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 freely admit I have an anti-gun bias. *I am fully aware of it
. *I
don't think I have ever written anything that would indicate
otherwise.

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

* *Good question. *I will not limit the possibilities, but what I
would
look for would be some really valid and good statistical data
properly analyzed. * As I have explained many times, so far I have
not been able
*to
locate that good statistical data. *I doubt if it has been
collected.

That's nonsense. It *has* been collected, and you *have* already been
told

where to find it. You just refuse to accept it.

So the real answer to the question "What *would* convince you?" is --
noth
ing.

* *I am sorry you find it so difficult to show respect to ideas
th
at
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".

* *What good data have I refused to see? *

Lott's book, for starters.
Kleck's papers.

I have seen a fair amount of
evidence that conflicts with my opinions (I have not come to a
conclusion
*on
the subject yet), and I have see a fair amount of evidence that
supports
my
opinions, but none either way that is convincing. *I would hardly
call
that
having my mind made up and refusing to see evidence.

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

* *I can't disagree with that.

* *It is foolish to continue to argue without data. *If you have g
ood data
you would like to present, I would be happy to review it and
comment.

The data has already been presented to you in this thread, months
ago. You

refuse to acknowledge it.

However I believe we have reached the end of useful discussion of
the iss
ue
until new better data is made available.

We have reached the end of useful discussion of the issue until you
decide
*to
examine the existing data with an open mind.

* *Please carefully note the differences between when I explain
what
*I
believe and what I know. *They are very different statements. You
seem
to
have confused the two.

The confusion is entirely on your part -- you refuse to accept into
your sphere of "what you know" anything that conflicts with something
that's already in the sphere of "what you believe".

* *If you believe that is being blind, then go ahead and believe
it.

Yep.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Example of AGU that I was involved with. *Not really a direct threat
to us but it ended a problem.

We farmed on a ridge above Ahsaka, Idaho (directly above Dworshak
reservoir). *We, and the neighbors had problems with jacklighters, a
couple of cows lost to them. *One night we see a car coming down the
ridge shining a spotlight over the fields. *Waited until they past our
entrance then Dad, me and my big brother took a stance across the
road. *Road ended 1/2 mile down. *On their way back they didn't
appreciated being stopped but with the three of us, all with deer
rifles, displayed they didn't have much choice. *A polite warning that
we didn't want to see them back -ever- ended the jacklighting on our
ridge at least.

Harry K

the Standard term is DGU;Defensive Gun Use.

IMO,you should have shot the poachers. In some places,it's legal.
Now,they just prey on someone else's herds.

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

- Show quoted text -

I had to go back and see what I wrote. I thought I _had_ used DGU.

Harry K

On 9 Feb 2008 16:24:58 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in news:Knerj.112$R64.44@trndny03:

Pisano wrote:

Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

At my place.

In Texas.
They are allowed to use deadly force to protect their property,as is proper
and right.


what right do thieves have to someone else's property?
If one cannot own property,they are not truly free.

Besides,it's GOVERNMENT that is restricted from cruel and unusual
punishment,not the citizens.
Since the police are no credible threat to thieves,thieves should have to
take their chances against whatever the ODC property owner deals out when
trying to stop their thievery.If they get shot during a theft or
burglary,that is their own choice to take such a risk;they should bear the
consequences.
That is the way it used to be back before the
socialists/"Progressives"/bleeding hearts began enacting their politically
correct crap.
(caring more about the criminal than the ODCs.)

THEN,you will see such crimes diminish.

Let the CRIMINAL bear the risks,not the ODCs.


That sounds extreme.

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:Knerj.112$R64.44@trndny03:

Pisano wrote:

Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

At my place.

In Texas.
They are allowed to use deadly force to protect their property,as is
proper and right.


what right do thieves have to someone else's property?
If one cannot own property,they are not truly free.

Besides,it's GOVERNMENT that is restricted from cruel and unusual
punishment,not the citizens.
Since the police are no credible threat to thieves,thieves should have
to take their chances against whatever the ODC property owner deals
out when trying to stop their thievery.If they get shot during a theft
or burglary,that is their own choice to take such a risk;they should
bear the consequences.
That is the way it used to be back before the
socialists/"Progressives"/bleeding hearts began enacting their
politically correct crap.
(caring more about the criminal than the ODCs.)

THEN,you will see such crimes diminish.

Let the CRIMINAL bear the risks,not the ODCs.


BTW,I'm a victim of thieves;first they stole the badges off the extrerior
of my Integra GS-R,then the ECU(car doesn't run without the engine
electronics,and it was SIX weeks to get a new one!),then a few years
later,they made several attempts to steal the entire car.I was unable to
justify shooting them under the law as it is today in Florida,and they
eventually were successful in stealing the car despite an alarm,(I watched
it happen)and other security measures I took,from a GATED community.
The car was found 3 days later,two counties away,stripped and torched.All
my tools that were in the car were lost,too. Insurance doesn't begin to
cover the REAL worth of what was taken,and all that does is overlook the
thefts and spread the costs to everyone.And I suppose they used my engine
and parts in street racers that endangers the public.Also,they are still
free to prey on other people,with a tiny chancee of their ever being
caught.

I couldn't buy another Integra,as they would have taken that one,too.
Loss of FREEDOM,along with loss of valuable property.
and I have to live behind *F-ing BARS* for even a sense of "security"!!

That's why I believe in use of deadly force upon such thieves;
it's NOT equal to shooting a starving man or for items of small value.
These thieves have NO value to our society.

Oh,and police were WORTHLESS;the property has digital security cams on all
the exits(for the car that brought the thieves in and led my car out),and
police never bothered to go LOOK at the recordings.
They don't patrol our property,either.

but such thefts do "justify" their salaries....

they don't protect me and they don't allow me to *effectively* protect my
own property,that I worked hard for. A loss of FREEDOM.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Pisano wrote:

That sounds extreme.

Not as extreme as making me feel insecure, impacting the sanctity of my home
and property, and putting my family at risk.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On 9 Feb 2008 22:10:11 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news:Knerj.112$R64.44@trndny03:

Pisano wrote:

Where is theft, even grand theft, a capital offense?

At my place.

In Texas.
They are allowed to use deadly force to protect their property,as is
proper and right.


what right do thieves have to someone else's property?
If one cannot own property,they are not truly free.

Besides,it's GOVERNMENT that is restricted from cruel and unusual
punishment,not the citizens.
Since the police are no credible threat to thieves,thieves should have
to take their chances against whatever the ODC property owner deals
out when trying to stop their thievery.If they get shot during a theft
or burglary,that is their own choice to take such a risk;they should
bear the consequences.
That is the way it used to be back before the
socialists/"Progressives"/bleeding hearts began enacting their
politically correct crap.
(caring more about the criminal than the ODCs.)

THEN,you will see such crimes diminish.

Let the CRIMINAL bear the risks,not the ODCs.


BTW,I'm a victim of thieves;first they stole the badges off the extrerior
of my Integra GS-R,then the ECU(car doesn't run without the engine
electronics,and it was SIX weeks to get a new one!),then a few years
later,they made several attempts to steal the entire car.I was unable to
justify shooting them under the law as it is today in Florida,and they
eventually were successful in stealing the car despite an alarm,(I watched
it happen)and other security measures I took,from a GATED community.
The car was found 3 days later,two counties away,stripped and torched.All
my tools that were in the car were lost,too. Insurance doesn't begin to
cover the REAL worth of what was taken,and all that does is overlook the
thefts and spread the costs to everyone.And I suppose they used my engine
and parts in street racers that endangers the public.Also,they are still
free to prey on other people,with a tiny chancee of their ever being
caught.

I couldn't buy another Integra,as they would have taken that one,too.
Loss of FREEDOM,along with loss of valuable property.
and I have to live behind *F-ing BARS* for even a sense of "security"!!

That's why I believe in use of deadly force upon such thieves;
it's NOT equal to shooting a starving man or for items of small value.
These thieves have NO value to our society.

Oh,and police were WORTHLESS;the property has digital security cams on all
the exits(for the car that brought the thieves in and led my car out),and
police never bothered to go LOOK at the recordings.
They don't patrol our property,either.

but such thefts do "justify" their salaries....

they don't protect me and they don't allow me to *effectively* protect my
own property,that I worked hard for. A loss of FREEDOM.

I grew up in Florida. Farmers reloaded shot gun shells (10,12 ga.)
with *rock salt* in place of lead (peel the top back/open remove
lead/pack with large salt pellets). The salt went below the skin in
the ass end. Burned and needed to be plucked out with tweezers. Never
killed, but kept trespassers away...

"Property crimes" end up on the back burner. Yesterday; after 100 or
so burglaries, smash and grabs plus home invasions our locals busted
two meth heads (a couple!).

Inventory of recovered items include automatic weapons, ATVs,
electronics = 100 items or so. They live in a neighbor - folks
suspected peculiar activity and never called the police.*

Thieves, seldom do much time in the slammer.

Saw a report today where a guy got tired of break-ins of his car so he
put up a web cam and then uploaded it to You Tube.

* thieves - video icon on left

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=7846544


Oren
--

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news:h6rrj.138$eU3.54@trndny04...
Pisano wrote:

That sounds extreme.

Not as extreme as making me feel insecure, impacting the sanctity of my
home and property, and putting my family at risk.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

What sounds extreme to me is anyone breaking into another person's
belongings. Into their car. Into their dwelling. Sometimes with them in
it. Terrorizing citizens, some of them women and children in the dark of
night or the broad daylight.

All to steal a thousand bucks worth of stuff from people who worked hard for
it, and all to go sell it for a couple rocks of cocaine or speed worth fifty
bucks.

To me, that's about as extreme as it gets.

Steve

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:58:05 GMT, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Pisano wrote:

That sounds extreme.

Not as extreme as making me feel insecure, impacting the sanctity of my home
and property, and putting my family at risk.


That is more in line with the doctrine of self defense, which
I do accept.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:57:39 -0600, wrote:

On 2 Jan 2008 21:06:06 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:


Not really, you're not. You've already been given plenty of answers,
but you're disregarding the ones that conflict with your a priori
biases. Start by reading "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.


Lott,Gary Kleck of FSU;IIRC,they were both ANTI_GUN before they began their
research.

I wont even consider going to a mall without carrying my AK-47, my
Glock, and several other handguns. A guy never knows when a good
looking woman might accidentally step on my foot and I'll have to
impress her with my gun collection before I take her home for some
great sex. Women love guns. Show a woman a gun, and you get her
pussy. It works every time. The bigger the gun, the more she loves
it. Many women go to the mall just to find men with big guns. The
bigger and harder the gun, the more the women want them. This is
2008, not 1950. Back in the 50's women only wanted to see a man's
balls, so men would walk around with a baseball or football (depending
on the season). These days the women want to see his gun, and if you
want to pick up a woman at the mall, you damn well better have a gun
packed in your pants.

Hey, you sound like my kind of guy. I dont go anywhere in public without
my AR-15 and at least 2 pistols nad a lot of knives. I suppose women are
impressed when I blow away some cocksucker who walked in front of me,
but I dont care what women do, becuse I am gay. And if I even look at
another man, my boyfriend gets really ****ed becuase he said my cock is
all his and no other man will ever touch it. He carrys guns too and he
hes killed at least 6 guys who tried to get in my pants.

I love my boyfriend but he is a bully and gets jealous. I love my guns
as much as I love him, and I love balls too. (especially his). But I
hate most other people and just want to kill them. There is a troll on
this newsgroup who I plan to kill this week. I am tired of him using my
nym and pretending to be me. So he's gonna get shot and die. I am the
real Oren and own this nym. This other ****er impersonating me is a
thief since he stold my nym. Now he dies! I cant wait to pull the
trigger.

I probably should not say this on here about me being gay because my
boyfriend posts on this newsgroup too, but I have to say what I feel. My
therapist says I need to be more honest, so I am doing so now. But as
soon as he reads this, I know we will have a huge cock fight and one of
us will end up with a bloody cock.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 01:15:10 -0400, Oren wrote:

NNTP-Posting-Host: TKghX/mglWkVW1qxlGBsyg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 8.0/32.1272

FOAD Cow, a cowardly imposter. Don't you have a date with your farm
animals?

You serve no purpose in life, prick!

On 4/5/2017 2:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 01:15:10 -0400, Oren wrote:

NNTP-Posting-Host: TKghX/mglWkVW1qxlGBsyg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 8.0/32.1272

FOAD Cow, a cowardly imposter. Don't you have a date with your farm
animals?

You serve no purpose in life, prick!


You light up his life, Oren.
You should feel good about that.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:27:31 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 4/5/2017 2:28 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 01:15:10 -0400, Oren wrote:

NNTP-Posting-Host: TKghX/mglWkVW1qxlGBsyg.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 8.0/32.1272

FOAD Cow, a cowardly imposter. Don't you have a date with your farm
animals?

You serve no purpose in life, prick!


You light up his life, Oren.
You should feel good about that.

He wants to be like me Frank. Envious. I'm often imitated but never
duplicated. That mold is broken.
--
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
-- Winston Churchill