On Dec 12, 3:24 pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a chap named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

As of yesterday the decision on whether to charge him was still up in
the air. Bill O'reilly had his lawyer on the "no spin zone" and
lawyer said it hadn't been made yet.

For those who don't know, Texas is the only state (that I know of)
where use of deadly force to protect one's property is legal. The law
apparently, per the talkiing heads, even specifically states that it
can be used to protect your neighbor's property. There are some other
states beginning to show some improvement. Florida (I think it was)
just recently changed their "need to retreat first" law to eliminate
that part of the law.

The big argument going on charge/no charge appears to be "Did Horn
feel threatened" which per Texas law, shouldn't even be required.

Harry K

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in
:

I'm sure Herr Klinton and her ilk would like to disarm Amerika. When
they do, it will be fighting in the streets. And the true meaning of
the amendment to keep and bear arms will be understood by all. It was
to protect us from a tyrannical government. Like Hillary has in mind.
Confiscate obscene business profits. Outlaw guns. Socialize the US.

Not "socialize",but COMMUNIZE.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Communism is an economic term not a political one.


that's what all the "progressives" say.
In real life,it IS political.

BTW,define "obscene business profits".

Guys like you disgust me. Move to a "socialist" country.
Try that for 5 years(a 5 year plan,just like USSR's!)and see how you like
it before you try to wreck my country.
(any farther than your kind already has....)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

...

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse
"appeal to authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the message,
condem the messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly
stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the normal
and usual expected expertise of an Economist does not include crime
studies. That certainly does not make him wrong, but it does eliminate
any special authoritative weight


If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd
all like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo
clown is irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the
detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.



IOW,you're just blowing wind.
Your mind is made up,and no facts will change it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
..


Just this week, a "25" year-old female, Jeanne Assam, took down the
shooter at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Assam had prior police training, true, but she was NOT a police
officer at the time of the shooting, was not employed by the church
(she was a volunteer member of the security contingent), and she used
her personally-owned weapon.

I understand she was working as a security guard at the time,
which only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

...


how are security guards anything BUT a civilian?
They are NOT part of any governmental organization.
seems like you want to redefine things to suit your skewed worldview.


Are EX-police officers civilians? If no,why not?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

..

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

Some, do you know the percentage?

why,does it matter?



You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.

So,you do not believe in the Constitution,nor the reasons WHY there's a
Second Amendment.


I consider my gun as insurance. Better to have it and not need it,
than to need it and not have it.


I wonder what the stats are on the number of people shot by
intention or accident by someone in the family or a friend using a
legally held gun? How many are shot by someone with a illegally held gun?


at least 2.5 MILLION DGUs per year(Defensive Gun Uses) by ODCs(Ordinary
Decent citizens).
That far outweighs the much smaller number of bad gun uses.

You really need to educate yourself on gun issues.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

..

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

Some, do you know the percentage?

What does it matter?
ONE criminal with a gun can commit many gun crimes before they are caught.
There is NO nation on Earth that has successfully banned guns.
They all still have gun crimes.
And when you try to cite different rates,you neglect cultural differences.
You cannot just compare raw rates.(unless you are dishonest or ignorant)



You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.


I consider my gun as insurance. Better to have it and not need it,
than to need it and not have it.


I wonder what the stats are on the number of people shot by
intention or
accident by someone in the family or a friend using a legally held
gun? How many are shot by someone with a illegally held gun?


How are laws going to prevent ILLEGAL gun usage?
They don't stop illegal drug usage.They don't stop murder by other
weapons,either.

Examine the VERY low number of firearm misuses by people who have legal
Concealed Carry Permits. Their record is EXCELLENT,better than police.

Consider the 250 million plus guns in the US,then look at the number of gun
misuses. 99% of the guns are NOT misused.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:



"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:37:35 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

And all our laws on the books can't keep the
guns from the hands of criminals in the US.

Some folks just want to legislate and legislate - morality.


Morality???



yes,I know it's something "progressives" cannot comprehend.

Part of "morality" is knowing the difference between right and wrong,good
and evil. You seem to think that guns are always "evil".


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

David Starr wrote in
:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted,
even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Well, that'll make them more expensive, and a little harder to get.
On the other hand, there won't be any paperwork to fill out, just hand
over the cash.

As in Japan,where the Yakuza have a BUSINESS of gun-running,such a ban will
create a black market for guns and ammo,just as Prohibition did for
alcohol,and foster more organized crime,as Prohibition did.

Since the buyers will mostly be criminals,ODCs will suffer even more,as
they do in Mexico and other countries.Governments will have total power
over their people,and that is what the Communist Meehan seems to desire.
There will be more crime and more murders.


Honest question..... Why do people think making guns illegal will be
any more effective than making drugs illegal?

Because they are irrational.
Gun control has been shown to not work in DC and other US
cities,UK,Australia,Mexico,Japan,Brazil,etc.,but the "progressives" believe
MORE gun control will somehow work.

That sure worked,
didn't it?

Not in ANY country on Earth.

But the Utopian dreamers like Meehan keep on thinking "If only...."


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?


try www.guncite.org

read the works of John Lott,David Kopel,Mustard,Clayton Cramer.
(BTW,they all give CITES to the sources of their data.)

(what do you mean by "good numbers"??? Those that fit your worldview?)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?

Does anyone have any good numbers on the number of times
this has been hashed out on Usenet before?

I've tracked threads in dozens of different news groups
over the past 15 years -- same old questions asked and
answered.

Yes, most of the data are available from DoJ. See also
John Lott's excellent analysis. There are many other
sources too.

Interesting observation based on reading thousands of
posts on this subject: the pro-gun posters have typically
acquainted themselves with the facts and gun-control
posters typically haven't.


--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's
house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating
he was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast
(TWO?) was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature.
These were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

In Henderson, Nevada, my neighbor saw two men breaking into my house.
He told his wife to call 911, and he came over the wall with a
shotgun. One of the men stopped, the other ran away, getting a
haircut and a shave before police picked him up at his home. The
truck was registered to him. He ended up getting off, since he didn't
match the description of the burglar.

During the arrest of the one who stayed, the police had to discuss
whether or not to arrest my neighbor, since he was not on his
property. One policeman emptied the pump shotgun on the ground and
said they could not arrest him because the weapon was not loaded. He
then told my neighbor that next time they would, since he really was
acting in good faith, but did not know the law about using force to
protect your NEIGHBOR'S property.

The one fellow went to prison, the other got off. But I'm sure he got
caught for something else later.

Not sure how it would have gone if he would have shot one of them.

Personal rights and all that other chicken****.

Steve




it's very sad that people cannot protect their property or their
neighbors,that they must stand aside and allow thieves to be SAFE in the
commission of a burglary. How "progressive"..... ;-{
(it used to be that people did not need to lock their doors...back when
people COULD and did shoot thieves.)

The right to own property is a basic freedom;if one cannot own property,and
that includes keeping others from wrongfully taking it,then one is not
truly free.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a chap
named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's
house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

In Henderson, Nevada, my neighbor saw two men breaking into my house. He
told his wife to call 911, and he came over the wall with a shotgun. One of
the men stopped, the other ran away, getting a haircut and a shave before
police picked him up at his home. The truck was registered to him. He
ended up getting off, since he didn't match the description of the burglar.

During the arrest of the one who stayed, the police had to discuss whether
or not to arrest my neighbor, since he was not on his property. One
policeman emptied the pump shotgun on the ground and said they could not
arrest him because the weapon was not loaded. He then told my neighbor that
next time they would, since he really was acting in good faith, but did not
know the law about using force to protect your NEIGHBOR'S property.

The one fellow went to prison, the other got off. But I'm sure he got
caught for something else later.

Not sure how it would have gone if he would have shot one of them.

Personal rights and all that other chicken****.

Steve

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 3:24 pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:
My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a chap
named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's
house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

As of yesterday the decision on whether to charge him was still up in
the air. Bill O'reilly had his lawyer on the "no spin zone" and
lawyer said it hadn't been made yet.

For those who don't know, Texas is the only state (that I know of)
where use of deadly force to protect one's property is legal. The law
apparently, per the talkiing heads, even specifically states that it
can be used to protect your neighbor's property. There are some other
states beginning to show some improvement. Florida (I think it was)
just recently changed their "need to retreat first" law to eliminate
that part of the law.

The big argument going on charge/no charge appears to be "Did Horn
feel threatened" which per Texas law, shouldn't even be required.

Harry K

The talking heads are wrong on the neighbor's property part. The author of
the law was on Houston TV news day before yesterday and he said it did not
include anything about a neighbor's property. But, the two perps came at
Horn in a threatening manner and he told them to stop or he would shoot. One
of them made a threatening gesture and Horn shot him and the other turned to
run and was shot. The kicker to all this? It was witnessed by a POLICE
OFFICER! Kinda makes you wonder, if a policeman saw the whole thing, why
there was no arrest at the scene like there usually is when a crime is
committed.


--
The very first thing they teach freshmen
politicians is that a politician's main job
is to make people worry about something
so the government can fix it and tax it.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

http://www.reason.com/
www.ij.org

JC

Joseph Meehan wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
..


Just this week, a "25" year-old female, Jeanne Assam, took down the
shooter at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Assam had prior police training, true, but she was NOT a police
officer at the time of the shooting, was not employed by the church
(she was a volunteer member of the security contingent), and she used
her personally-owned weapon.

I understand she was working as a security guard at the time, which
only supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

...

Why not? She is a civilian in every sense of the word since she isn't a
police officer. Even more so she was a volunteer who happened to be on
site with her own personal weapon.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd all
like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo clown is
irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.

In other words, your mind is already made up, and you don't want to be
confused with anything so mundane as actual facts.


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

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

In article , Harry K wrote:

For those who don't know, Texas is the only state (that I know of)
where use of deadly force to protect one's property is legal.

Learn of sixteen mo
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n17192377

The law
apparently, per the talkiing heads, even specifically states that it
can be used to protect your neighbor's property.

Here in Indiana, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop someone from
breaking into "a residence". Not necessarily *your* residence.

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

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

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:


The law
apparently, per the talkiing heads, even specifically states that it
can be used to protect your neighbor's property.

Here in Indiana, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop someone from
breaking into "a residence". Not necessarily *your* residence.

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to avoid
conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first drop of
blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Here in Indiana, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop someone from
breaking into "a residence". Not necessarily *your* residence.

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to avoid
conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first drop of
blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

Doesn't even require that, actually. I remember a case here in Indianapolis
some five or ten years back, where a guy shot dead someone who was attempting
to break into the house next door. The perp never made it inside. Newspaper
reporter asked the prosecutor why no charges were filed against the shooter;
prosecutor replied that there was nothing to charge him with, as no laws had
been broken.

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

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

On Dec 12, 6:17 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote :







"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

...

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse
"appeal to authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the message,
condem the messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly
stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the normal
and usual expected expertise of an Economist does not include crime
studies. That certainly does not make him wrong, but it does eliminate
any special authoritative weight

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd
all like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo
clown is irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the
detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.

IOW,you're just blowing wind.
Your mind is made up,and no facts will change it.

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

- Show quoted text -

What's worse is he has made his mind up on a very important item with
no attempt to study it then ignores any information provided.

"Guns are bad...I just know that"

Brilliant!

Harry K

Harry K wrote in
:

On Dec 12, 6:17 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote
:







"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

...

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse
"appeal to authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the
message, condem the messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly
stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the
normal and usual expected expertise of an Economist does not
include crime studies. That certainly does not make him wrong, but
it does eliminate any special authoritative weight

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it;
if someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion,
we'd all like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer,
or rodeo clown is irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download
the detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of
someone without any apparent authority on the subject.

IOW,you're just blowing wind.
Your mind is made up,and no facts will change it.

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

- Show quoted text -

What's worse is he has made his mind up on a very important item with
no attempt to study it then ignores any information provided.

"Guns are bad...I just know that"

Brilliant!

Harry K


Meehan overlooks the fact that guns in civilian hands are used far more for
GOOD than evil,in the US.
Note that the media rarely reports on the good DGUs,in fact makes effort to
NOT report them(by omission). There are many more that go unreported.


Meehan can go to the NRA website,and read The Armed Citizen column,where
they have 10-12 reports every month gleaned from newspapers all around the
US telling of legit DGUs by civilians.And they provide the paper's name and
date the article ran.


(DGU= defensive gun use)




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Here in Indiana, the law permits the use of deadly force to stop
someone from breaking into "a residence". Not necessarily *your*
residence.

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to avoid
conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first drop of
blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

Doesn't even require that, actually. I remember a case here in
Indianapolis some five or ten years back, where a guy shot dead
someone who was attempting to break into the house next door. The perp
never made it inside. Newspaper reporter asked the prosecutor why no
charges were filed against the shooter; prosecutor replied that there
was nothing to charge him with, as no laws had been broken.


Heck,they should have given the guy a medal.
He performed a valuable public service.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Harry K wrote:

What's worse is he has made his mind up on a very important item with
no attempt to study it then ignores any information provided.

Yup.

"Guns are bad...I just know that"

Brilliant!

Well, in the interests of adding some balance... guns *are*
a problem. But almost any/every useful tool can be abused
and often is. Banning the tool doesn't achieve anything.
Should we ban knives, chainsaws, automobiles, pencils and
everything else that has the potential to be used (abused)
as a lethal weapon? I think not.

Neither the pro-gun lobby (who often ignore the very real
problem) nor the gun control lobby (who generally seem to
think that yet another ban/control law will solve the
problem) advance the discussion.

In the meantime, responsible individuals need to make
their own personal choices on this issue. But responsible
citizens will make an informed choice versus burrying
their heads in piles of dogma.




--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kurt Ullman wrote:

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to avoid
conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first drop of
blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

I'm not familiar with Indiana law, but that sounds like an urban legend. I
would think that in ANY jurisdiction you have the right to defend yourself
if you are in fear of your life.

Whether the gremlin is inside your house, on the street (with a rifle), or
on the moon (with a missle?), you should have an unfettered ability to end
the threat.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by
guns owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the
victim?

Even that figure is misleading inasmuch as "persons known to the victim" are
classed as "friends."

MOST handgun killings involve drug deals gone bad or gang-related conflicts.
In that sense, it's "friends" that are doing the killing.

For example, in one Minnesota study, only 6% of gun deaths involved a
stranger as the victim. Specifically:

Shooter was:
Immediate family member - 24%
Other family or "friend" - 63%
Stranger - 6%
Other/Unknown -7%
http://www.endgunviolence.com/index....5BDDD5A099E%7D

So, while the relationship between the shooter and the victim is
interesting, a much better statistic would be whether the victim needed
killing.

(Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
:

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

What's worse is he has made his mind up on a very important item with
no attempt to study it then ignores any information provided.

Yup.

"Guns are bad...I just know that"

Brilliant!

Well, in the interests of adding some balance... guns *are*
a problem. But almost any/every useful tool can be abused
and often is. Banning the tool doesn't achieve anything.
Should we ban knives, chainsaws, automobiles, pencils and
everything else that has the potential to be used (abused)
as a lethal weapon? I think not.

Neither the pro-gun lobby (who often ignore the very real
problem) nor the gun control lobby (who generally seem to
think that yet another ban/control law will solve the
problem) advance the discussion.

Except that pro-gun people are very insistent on tough sentences for gun
misuse,are VERY strong on real gun safety,and they contribute to peoples
safety,while the anti-gun folks only make the criminals safer,and they tend
to excuse the criminal and blame the tool.They would rather go after the
victims of theft than the criminal.
BTW,criminals are very much for gun control;THEY know it makes them safer.
They know police are not always around to protect you.



In the meantime, responsible individuals need to make
their own personal choices on this issue. But responsible
citizens will make an informed choice versus burrying
their heads in piles of dogma.





IMO,the GUN or whatever tool is used criminally is NOT the "problem",the
problem is the person who misuses the item.
"guns don't kill people,people kill people."
It takes a PERSON to -decide- to harm another.


whether you get killed by car,gun,or knife doesn't really matter.
You're just as dead.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Malcolm Hoar wrote:

Well, in the interests of adding some balance... guns *are*
a problem. But almost any/every useful tool can be abused
and often is. Banning the tool doesn't achieve anything.
Should we ban knives, chainsaws, automobiles, pencils and
everything else that has the potential to be used (abused)
as a lethal weapon? I think not.

Uh, I'll bite: What's "the problem" with guns?


Neither the pro-gun lobby (who often ignore the very real
problem) nor the gun control lobby (who generally seem to
think that yet another ban/control law will solve the
problem) advance the discussion.

The euphemism, "the problem," is a shortcut for what, exactly?

For example, "the problem" (temporarily) solved by the Assault Weapons Ban
was that the prohibited items "looked ugly." That is, the AWB dealt with
purely cosmetic features. None of the prohibited items involved caliber,
rate of fire, muzzle velocity, or anything affecting the operation or
effectiveness of the weapons, except maybe the bayonet lug proscription.


In the meantime, responsible individuals need to make
their own personal choices on this issue. But responsible
citizens will make an informed choice versus burrying
their heads in piles of dogma.

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his
neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect Property] for
the straight skinney.

Even if the law's not exactly, 100%, on his side, the DA has to consider
what a "jury of his peers" might do. While the District Attorney involved is
not exactly gun-friendly, he's no doubt aware that Horn can invoke the Texas
"But yer honer, they needed killin' " defense (usually followed by "Oh, well
then, case dismissed').

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
Malcolm Hoar wrote:

Well, in the interests of adding some balance... guns *are*
a problem. But almost any/every useful tool can be abused
and often is. Banning the tool doesn't achieve anything.
Should we ban knives, chainsaws, automobiles, pencils and
everything else that has the potential to be used (abused)
as a lethal weapon? I think not.

Uh, I'll bite: What's "the problem" with guns?

Okay, not a good choice of words on my part ;-)

But we have a lot of guns in circulation and that does
increase the risks of accidents. We also have a lot of
guns in the hands of folks that shouldn't have access
to firearms.

Guns, like the other tools I mentioned, are inanimate
objects.

We have a lot of automobiles too -- and that's a problem
too. It led to a slew of regulations (some good, some bad,
as always). Fortunately, the automobile debate is not quite
as polarized and rational debate is frequently possible.

The euphemism, "the problem," is a shortcut for what, exactly?

For example, "the problem" (temporarily) solved by the Assault Weapons Ban
was that the prohibited items "looked ugly."

I know! I even know who they "looked ugly" to. DiFi is
a real piece of work.


--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that are not
really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
Malcolm Hoar wrote:

Well, in the interests of adding some balance... guns *are*
a problem. But almost any/every useful tool can be abused
and often is. Banning the tool doesn't achieve anything.
Should we ban knives, chainsaws, automobiles, pencils and
everything else that has the potential to be used (abused)
as a lethal weapon? I think not.

Uh, I'll bite: What's "the problem" with guns?

Okay, not a good choice of words on my part ;-)

But we have a lot of guns in circulation and that does
increase the risks of accidents. We also have a lot of
guns in the hands of folks that shouldn't have access
to firearms.

Guns, like the other tools I mentioned, are inanimate
objects.

We have a lot of automobiles too -- and that's a problem
too. It led to a slew of regulations (some good, some bad,
as always). Fortunately, the automobile debate is not quite
as polarized and rational debate is frequently possible.

Really? G Try discussing, at a senior center, the testing of elderly
drivers at license renewal time to determine suitability to drive due to
age.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

Except that pro-gun people are very insistent on tough sentences for gun
misuse,are VERY strong on real gun safety,and they contribute to peoples
safety,while the anti-gun folks only make the criminals safer,and they tend
to excuse the criminal and blame the tool.They would rather go after the
victims of theft than the criminal.

All very true, based on my observations.


--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:37:34 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his
neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect Property] for
the straight skinney.

Even if the law's not exactly, 100%, on his side, the DA has to consider
what a "jury of his peers" might do. While the District Attorney involved is
not exactly gun-friendly, he's no doubt aware that Horn can invoke the Texas
"But yer honer, they needed killin' " defense (usually followed by "Oh, well
then, case dismissed').


Now that is swift and certain justice He wouldn't have any peers on
a jury in the state of Meehan.

In article , "Dave Bugg" wrote:

We have a lot of automobiles too -- and that's a problem
too. It led to a slew of regulations (some good, some bad,
as always). Fortunately, the automobile debate is not quite
as polarized and rational debate is frequently possible.

Really? G Try discussing, at a senior center, the testing of elderly
drivers at license renewal time to determine suitability to drive due to
age.

ROTFL.

The testing of elderly drivers is not a subject I care
to discuss with my 83 year old Dad either ;-)

Try discussing, at a high school, the regulations concerning
young drivers!

I did say "frequently possible" and not "always possible".

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:00:40 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

In article , wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that are not
really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

I was trying to point out that emotions can guide decisions and be just as
valid as "facts".

I know. It wasn't a good example ;-)

There are MANY very controversial issues that are really controversial only
because of the emotions involved. Abortion, Gun Control, Gay Marriage, etc.

Yes, but there are a lot of highly relevant facts that apply
to each and every one of those topics. Public policy decisions
made in the absence (or defiance) of those facts are unlikely
to be sound.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:00:40 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married that
are not really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

I was trying to point out that emotions can guide decisions and be
just as valid as "facts".

Two year-olds and liberals all agree.

There are MANY very controversial issues that are really
controversial only because of the emotions involved. Abortion, Gun
Control, Gay Marriage, etc.

And yet, out of all that you poffered as examples, only one has specific
mention in the Constitution.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

And there is no requirement (as in some states) that you try to avoid
conflict. Generally speaking in Indiana as long as the first drop of
blood is inside the threshold, you are in the clear.

I'm not familiar with Indiana law, but that sounds like an urban legend. I
would think that in ANY jurisdiction you have the right to defend yourself
if you are in fear of your life.
We were discussing specifically burglars and others entering the
house, and it was not to considered the ONLY time you could drop the
dude. The prosecutor in Indy actually used that as *A* safe harbor type
illustration.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:37:34 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a
chap named Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his
neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

Do a Google on Texas Penal Code 9.42 [Deadly Force to Protect Property]
for
the straight skinney.

I don't think that's valid. Here is the Texas Penal Code Title 9
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

CHAPTER 43. PUBLIC INDECENCY

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
...
You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.


Well the Constitution was written to allow changes when and if
necessary. We have made changes before, I believe we may need one again,
depending on how the courts decide what the constitution really means in
this matter as it is now written.

I very much agree with the constitution.

Including the part that says I have a right to keep and bear arms?

Do you agree that it can
legally be changed under the constitution or not?

Of course it can be. The question is, should it? And to answer that question,
you need to answer a few others first:

1) How, exactly, would a law prohibiting the private possession of firearms
prevent criminals -- that is, those who don't obey laws anyway -- from
possessing them?

2) Consider that there are already a multitude of laws in place prohibiting
the possession of cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and so forth. What
reason is there to believe that a law prohibiting the possession of firearms
will be any more effective at preventing their possession than are the current
laws pertaining to those, and other, drugs?

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

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

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

[snip]
And quite frankly I would not want to be responsible for someone's
death even if they were threatening me.

So you would rather die, than to kill in self-defense. That is, of course,
your choice.

Just don't try to force others to make the same choice.

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

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

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:32:28 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:00:40 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Okay, please give us "facts" pertaining to why you got married
that are not really just based on emotion.

Why? That's a purely personal choice. Not a public policy
question that he seeks to impose on the rest of the citizens.

I was trying to point out that emotions can guide decisions and be
just as valid as "facts".

I know. It wasn't a good example ;-)

There are MANY very controversial issues that are really
controversial only because of the emotions involved. Abortion, Gun
Control, Gay Marriage, etc.

Yes, but there are a lot of highly relevant facts that apply
to each and every one of those topics. Public policy decisions
made in the absence (or defiance) of those facts are unlikely
to be sound.

Oh, really?

So, after the US faced the REAL threat of Russian missiles for over
40 years without the Patriot Act and a Department of Homeland
Security, the decision to create both of them was based on FACTS
rather than emotions? Give me a break!

Apples and oranges. NSA and CIA and a dozen other agencies were dealing with
Soviet threats; the USSR vs America. Nation to nation. Terrorism is fluid
and is not centered in one specific nation. 9-11 was just the latest example
of homeland intelligence weakness where domestic intellegence (FBI) was
prevented, by policy and law, from receiving and sharing information from
the international intelligence gathering agencies. 9-11 was a fact, and it
was the nexis of the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland security.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com