Doug Miller wrote:

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation.
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states or individual
citizens (see "Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

Nonsense -- unless you contend that the same phrase, "the right of
the people," which appears in the First, Second, and Fourth
Amendments, means an individual right in the First and Fourth, but
a collective right in the
Second. There is no support, either linguistically or historically,
for that position.

But there is support legally for the position.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The CONTENT of the 2nd Amendment (milita,
people, etc.) is immaterial to my statement.

The original Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government.
Once the 14th Amendment was passed, various bits of the BOR trickled
down to the states via the "incorporation" doctrine. These bits were
applied at various times.

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand. My apologies.

Same back at ya. I see how easily my original post could have be read
another way.

"David Starr" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:48:27 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"

wrote:



I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder for
the
bad guys to get them too. However I don't consider this a deal breaker.

It would make getting a gun about as hard as getting marijuana is now.

BTW, it's possible to make a gun out of materials available at any
hardware
store. Going to ban that too?


These idiots have no rationale about banning things. It's all based on
emotion and feelings. Some post-sixties delusion that if we could just make
enough laws that we could all get along and legislatively get rid of
everything perceived to be bad and that go bump in the night. eeeewwwwwwwww!

The resultant Utopia would amount to being locked in a closet all day in a
straight jacket, being let out only long enough to shower and eat and for
them to hose out our cubicle. (Of course, the attendants would be armed,
but classified as another class of citizens, far below the high brows
spending all their town now contemplating in a dark closet, which is what
they do now, but they wouldn't have a keyboard.)

What would have happened if liberals had been around when the arrowhead was
invented?

It would have been banned and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Can you imagine a caveman having someone from PETA showing up during a
caveman food gathering trip?

Hey, everyone! We're having long pig teriyaki tonight!

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Malcolm Hoar" wrote

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

I've seen people talking on the cell phone, changing channels on the
radio, slapping Junior, putting on makeup, eating a taco, reading, and
picking their nose while driving. AND DOING IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
And I hear people who moan, Oh, I can do more than just drive.

Failure to pay full time and attention to driving. I think if they
VIGOROUSLY enforced that law, that they could ticket people for just
about anything they are doing while driving if the officer saw that it
caused them to weave or do something not a part of driving.

I DO NOT TALK ON THE CELL WHILE DRIVING. I tell people I will call
them back, or I pull over. I see these stupid little girls with the
cell phone to their ear BEING HELD BY THE OPPOSITE HAND (what's up
with that) and they look like a pretzel. And usually, they're right
on my ass. (I love hitting the brakes and watching their faces.)

They ought to make getting a driver's license and keeping one at least
as hard as getting a gun permit.

Steve




Vermont requires NO permit,open or concealed carry.
I have not heard of any big problem there,either;no "blood running in the
streets".

Alaska recently adopted that "system",too.

But I agree with your comments about drivers not paying attention to their
driving. I've had quite a number of close calls because of them.
Especially the SUVs,they all think they are invulnerable.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (Malcolm
Hoar)
wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

Or a new category of offense: DWS (Driving While Stupid).

Excellent proposal.

DWS seems to be most prevalent around elementary schools.
It's quite amazing -- the 3rd and 4th grades seem to have
more road sense than the parents chaufeuring them.

I like George Carlin's idea of "Stupid Stickers". People would put "Stupid
Stickers" on bad driver's cars, and when the police spotted a car with a
bunch of "Stupid Stickers" on it, they would stop them or watch them
closely. Which actually, might work. Since the person driving would be on
notice that they were driving poorly and attracting the attention of the
police.

Steve

David Starr wrote in
:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:48:27 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:



I never said it would. Although since the criminal has to get the
gun
somewhere, that gun often got into the system by being sold legally to
someone. Take more guns out of the system, it should make it harder
for the bad guys to get them too. However I don't consider this a
deal breaker.

It would make getting a gun about as hard as getting marijuana is now.

BTW, it's possible to make a gun out of materials available at any
hardware store. Going to ban that too?

A guy in Australia was making handguns in his home shop for illegal sale,by
the 100s.Police believe he had already sold 100s before they caught him.

I read in the Orlando Sentinel today that the police busted a drug dealer
with TWO stolen *Orlando Police* AR-15 assault rifles and a police shotgun
from an Orange County sheriffs deputy.Previously,they had two OCSD machine
guns stolen,one a silenced machine pistol.

Meehan does not realize how many Federal LEO firearms have been stolen or
"gone missing",either.Some have already been found to have been used in
crimes,some of them are HK-MP5K submachine guns,full-auto.
The last number I have seen quoted for lost FED guns was 800+.(in 2003!)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...5C200307%5 CN
AT20030702c.html


Also,drug smugglers can easily bring in guns along with their drugs.
(that they smuggle by the TON)

Authorities are afraid that the tunnels under the Mexican border have been
used to smuggle guns along with drugs...and smuggle in terrorists,too.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

Or a new category of offense: DWS (Driving While Stupid).

Excellent proposal.

DWS seems to be most prevalent around elementary schools.
It's quite amazing -- the 3rd and 4th grades seem to have
more road sense than the parents chaufeuring them.



because the parents have a lot of OTHER things on their minds than driving.
sometimes with tragic results.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

The Constitution has (almost) nothing to do with the conversation.
The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states or individual
citizens (see "Incorporation Doctrine" almost anywhere).

Nonsense -- unless you contend that the same phrase, "the right of
the people," which appears in the First, Second, and Fourth
Amendments, means an individual right in the First and Fourth, but a
collective right in the
Second. There is no support, either linguistically or historically,
for that position.

But there is support legally for the position.

Perhaps you misunderstood. The CONTENT of the 2nd Amendment (milita,
people, etc.) is immaterial to my statement.

The original Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government.

How so?

A true miscarriage of Justice;
When territories sign on to become a State,they agree to follow the
Constitution;ALL of it,not just the parts they like.
The BOR -IS- part of the Constitution.

the judges that allowed this "Incorporation" nonsense to happen should all
be executed.

Once the 14th Amendment was passed, various bits of the BOR trickled
down to the states via the "incorporation" doctrine. These bits were
applied at various times.

Ah, yes, I did misunderstand. My apologies.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 15 Dec 2007 01:25:20 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Meehan does not realize how many Federal LEO firearms have been stolen or
"gone missing",either.Some have already been found to have been used in
crimes,some of them are HK-MP5K submachine guns,full-auto.
The last number I have seen quoted for lost FED guns was 800+.(in 2003!)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...5C200307%5 CN
AT20030702c.html

Know a fellow that was interviewed by the FBI about stolen/missing
federal guns, night vision goggles, etc. He was assigned to US
Penitentiary in Atlanta. This was when the State Department announced
some Cuban prisoners would be flown back to Havana, Well, the Cubans
heard it on the radio and DOJ/Bureau of Prisons found out when the
riots started and the place was burned. I knew one of the Hostages and
his family.

Accountability of weapons went out the window, so to speak, ATF, FBI,
BOP, local authorities all over the place. Not sure they ever found
all the missing weapons and equipment.

Only the good guys had the weapons, something smelled of theft. You
can bet for sure the government took serious action to recover them.

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

DWS seems to be most prevalent around elementary schools.
It's quite amazing -- the 3rd and 4th grades seem to have
more road sense than the parents chaufeuring them.

because the parents have a lot of OTHER things on their minds than driving.
sometimes with tragic results.

Correct, but that's no excuse.

And how much OTHER stuff do you have to have on your mind
to stop on a corner (with 4-way Stop) 3-6 feet from the
sidewalk, to let three kids out of the car, on the
DRIVERS side (i.e. in the middle of an intersection)?

I see this kind of insanity almost every day.

That's worse than yakking on the cell with one hand, while
feeding little Johnny a snack with the other, while driving
out of the school area -- another ritual that I observe
daily.

When I drop-off and pick-up my kids, they had better sit
still, shut up and forget about snacks/drinks/toys for
the 10 minutes it takes to drive to school/home.

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

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:59:08 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

DWS seems to be most prevalent around elementary schools.
It's quite amazing -- the 3rd and 4th grades seem to have
more road sense than the parents chaufeuring them.

because the parents have a lot of OTHER things on their minds than driving.
sometimes with tragic results.

Correct, but that's no excuse.

And how much OTHER stuff do you have to have on your mind
to stop on a corner (with 4-way Stop) 3-6 feet from the
sidewalk, to let three kids out of the car, on the
DRIVERS side (i.e. in the middle of an intersection)?

I see this kind of insanity almost every day.

That's worse than yakking on the cell with one hand, while
feeding little Johnny a snack with the other, while driving
out of the school area -- another ritual that I observe
daily.

When I drop-off and pick-up my kids, they had better sit
still, shut up and forget about snacks/drinks/toys for
the 10 minutes it takes to drive to school/home.

HELP! Ted Kennedy drives me to day care. (toddler T-Shirt)

;-)

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:

The original Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government.

How so?

Parts of it, anyway: "Congress shall make no law ..." [I think they should
have just stopped right there, after those first five words, but that's
another discussion.]

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

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

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:10:57 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


Get rid of guns? What would be next? Books?

*

LONDON (Reuters) - The government said Wednesday it would ban the sale
of samurai swords because the weapons had been used in a number of
serious, high-profile attacks.

The Home Office said the swords would be added to the Offensive
Weapons Order from April next year, meaning they could not be
imported, sold or hired.

However collectors of genuine Japanese swords and those used by
martial arts enthusiasts would be exempt from the ban.

------------

"In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons," Home
Office Minister Vernon Coaker said.

In 2000, Robert Ashman murdered a Liberal Democrat councilor at the
offices of Cheltenham MP Nigel Jones, who was also seriously hurt in
the attack.

A year earlier, Eden Strang seriously wounded 11 people when he went
on the rampage with a samurai sword at a Roman Catholic Church near
his home in Thornton Heath, south London.

(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Tim Castle)




*
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...19327520071214

In article , Oren wrote:

When I drop-off and pick-up my kids, they had better sit
still, shut up and forget about snacks/drinks/toys for
the 10 minutes it takes to drive to school/home.

HELP! Ted Kennedy drives me to day care. (toddler T-Shirt)

Well, I think that's funny.

Sadly, Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment!


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

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

[snip]


It is actually an evil choice. The logical conclusion to Mr. M's
profundity is that he would rather stand around and let innocent
people die, then to do anything to effectively stop someone from
murdering someone else.


Maybe you should review your logic.

Maybe you should review your humanity; my logic is fine, thank you.

--
Dave

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
....

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

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?

So because bad people steal cars and use them to commit crimes, we need to
take cars out of the possession of law-abiding people, eh?

--
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:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...


IOW -- it doesn't disturb you that criminals will still be able to get
guns,
but law-abiding citizens won't.

Why is that?

In part due to the fact that many gun deaths involve legally owned guns.

Cite, please? That article below doesn't support that statement.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as
follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802;
Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004)

There were over 40,000 deaths from automobiles. Want to ban them, too?




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?

People break speed laws all the time. They drive drunk all the time,
should we eliminate those laws? Should we eliminate the laws against
drugs?

Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

As stated before there are big differences between the two.

Answer the question. What reason is there to think that firearms laws will be
any more effective than drug laws?

Broader question: what reason is there to think that criminals will obey laws
prohibiting them from possessing firearms? They don't obey existing laws --
why do you think they will obey new laws?


And, for the record, yes, I do think we should eliminate most laws against
drugs. Private consumption of drugs does no demonstrable harm to society at
large, and thus society has no legitimate interest in prohibiting it. If you
want to get doped up in the privacy of your living room, it's no business of
mine or anyone else's. OTOH, if you get doped up and then drive your car on a
public road, then it *does* become society's business, because you're creating
a hazard to other.

I generally agree.


Which brings us right back to guns: possession of firearms by law-abiding
citizens poses no demonstrable harm to society at large, and thus society
has
no legitimate interest in prohibiting it.

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3
times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is
present.

So because some people misuse them, nobody should be allowed to have them.

Give up your car, Meehan. Some people drive drunk, therefore nobody should be
allowed to have a car. You first.

--
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:


My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns. Do
you have any better stats?


Why don't you quit guessing, and dig out some facts?

--
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:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
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.


If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more likely to
kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to provide self
defiance, what would you say?

I would say that's completely irrelevant.

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

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
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.


If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more
likely to kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to
provide self defiance, what would you say?

That at least 2.9 million uses of a firearm are used to thwart a criminal
from causing personal harm, where the gun is actually used or just displayed
prophylactically to the criminal. That you would have to show that suicide
and murder rates are lower simply because guns are non-accessible. That you
would have to demonstate that the guns were legally obtained. That since
many other household tools and items -- medications, ropes, razors, knives,
hammers, ice picks, et all -- have been used in the commission of a suicide
or a murder, you would have to be bag-O-rocks stupid, irrational, or
closed-minded to look at guns any differently in this regard than you would
look at any other tool.

So, which are you?

--
Dave

On Dec 18, 7:11 am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
..
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)

Do you have any accurate information on this? I have been asking for
some time. The information I have found has shown lower rates for those
countries with gun controls.



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.

Personally I would be happy with a good reduction.



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.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as
follows by mode of
death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention
323; Undetermined
231.(CDC, 2004)

My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns. Do
you have any better stats?



I have a problem with bundling suicides in with gun deaths. Someone
bent on suicide is going to do it, gun or no gun.

Another problem of those stats is that most of the 'children killed
with guns' come from gangs on gangs and those are no loss to society.

You keep coming back to 'take the guns, it will make it harder for
them to get them'. The problem there is that currently it is easy for
them to get one, after takign the guns it will only be slightly harder
to do so. That 'makes it easier' argument is one of the weakest
going.

The next weakest is the "kids killed with guns". When they bundle all
deaths up to age 18 (IIRC they even push it to 21 in some stats) as
"kids" the data is worthless. To be honest, the reporters should peel
off any deaths due to gang warfare and quite calling an 18 YOA a
'kid'.


Harry K

Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16:26 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
...


Did you take your position on guns (remove from law-abiding) after
the Vietnam Conflict? I do not want to think you would hold fire and
not protect brothers in harms way. Now if you were behind the front,
maybe you just counted beans ....

I believe I made it clear that I have never been in a combat zone.
I am very happy for that.

My position on private gun ownership has changed little since
before Vietnam. It has only strengthened.

Irrational mindsets tend to behave in that very manner.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns,
especially hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in
the army during the Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at
that time, while I scored well with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket
launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the 45 hand gun. I was
also not trained in the type of situations that would be most
likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening
targets meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent
person that a real threat. And quite frankly I would not want to
be responsible for someone's death even if they were threatening me.

I'm not well-trained in flying a 747 but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't TRY if the choice was between me doing my best it up and
crashing for sure. Trust me, it doesn't matter whether one is
well-trained. Even the
well-trained can die. But a possibility of living, small as it may
be, is a far, far greater good than the certainity of death.


Why is it that so many of the so-called civilian uses of guns to
protect others have turned out to be someone who has been
professionally trained?

It hasn't. Just where did you come up with that itty bitty nugget of
disinformation?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

SteveB wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote

If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more
likely to kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to
provide self defiance, what would you say?
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

I'd say that didn't happen in my home. Suicide is something you
cannot prevent for someone hell bent on doing it. If a person is
going to kill themself, they'll drink bleach. Should we outlaw
bleach?

I would guess that most would agree that Japan has strict gun control and
highly restricts gun ownership. Yet the suicide rates in Japan, per 100,000
are 36.5 for females and 14.1 for males. American rates are 17.6 for
females and 4.1 for males.

So, given a Meehanian-style conclusion based on a Meehanian-style analysis
of the facts, here is proof positive that the right to keep and bear arms
actually LOWERS the risk of suicide.

--
Dave

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

Do you have any accurate information on this? I have been asking for
some time. The information I have found has shown lower rates for those
countries with gun controls.

And then wrote:

My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns. Do
you have any better stats?

You ask for verification and facts, yet put out guesses.

Steve

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more likely
to kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to provide self
defiance, what would you say?
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

I'd say that didn't happen in my home. Suicide is something you cannot
prevent for someone hell bent on doing it. If a person is going to kill
themself, they'll drink bleach. Should we outlaw bleach?


Steve

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:25:56 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16:26 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
...


Did you take your position on guns (remove from law-abiding) after
the Vietnam Conflict? I do not want to think you would hold fire and
not protect brothers in harms way. Now if you were behind the front,
maybe you just counted beans ....

I believe I made it clear that I have never been in a combat zone. I am
very happy for that.

What you said was: "The last time I had a gun in my had was in the
army during the Vietnam war."

My position on private gun ownership has changed little since before
Vietnam. It has only strengthened.

I take it that you were drafted and did not enlist.

Why did you not apply as a conscientious objector and seek discharge?

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:51:25 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
...

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

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?


You want to take them from law abiding folk?

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


You make the guns illegal and I fail to turn mine over to authorities.
Now my guns are illegal.

When guns are outlawed; ONLY, outlaws will have guns.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:11:47 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:


My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns. Do
you have any better stats?


Why don't you quit guessing, and dig out some facts?

(thread reply #291)

I have to say Joseph holds his position. Armed or not.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
....

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

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?

So if somebody steals a gun from its legal owner, it's the *owner* who's the
problem, not the thief? Seems you want to place the blame for crime on
everyone but the criminals committing it. Why do you have such a hard time
placing the blame where it belongs? Does not having more thieves running
around loose, make it easier for things to be stolen?


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

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

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:26:40 -0800, Oren wrote:


You make the guns illegal and I fail to turn mine over to authorities.
Now my guns are illegal.

When guns are outlawed; ONLY, outlaws will have guns.

And there'll be a lot of us outlaws, too.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:51:25 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
...

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

Does not having more guns around legally, not make it easier for
someone to get a hold of them illegally?


Revisited.

(The bullet kills the person, not the gun.)

In '92 I purchased two boxes of ammo three days or so before they
were removed from the market by the manufacturer (under advice of the
medical profession and law enforcement).

The type of bullet is what really killed - not the single gun shot
wound. Emergency room doctors explained the extensive damage as the
bullet broke into sharp jagged pieces and scattered about the body -
hitting multiple vitals. Needing more doctors I guess.

I still have both unused (Antique) boxes, 40 Cartridges of WINCHESTER,
Supreme BLACK TALON .357 MAG 180 GR. SXT (S3S7M)

They bark over here and bite over Yonder!

In '92 if was the advanced technology...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:


A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member
by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where
no gun is present.

-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in
Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

Kellerman is widely known to be discredited.Kellerman himself now admits
his "study" is flawed.

Besides,suicide is one's own CHOICE,and doesn't harm anyone else.
(properly done...)
IOW,suicides don't count as far as criminal misuse of guns.

Suicide is also known to be means-independent;if someone is suicidal,they
use whatever means are at hand.Lack of a firearm means they just choose
some other method of suicide,which may be MORE hazardous to others.
Like if they drive a car off a bridge,or into oncoming traffic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
..
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)


Do you have any accurate information on this? I have been asking
for
some time. The information I have found has shown lower rates for
those countries with gun controls.

Again,you cannot compare raw rates,as the CULTURES are different.



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.

Personally I would be happy with a good reduction.

There's nothing to show that the gun control is the reason the rates are
lower.In most of those countries,after their gun control was enacted,there
was either no change in rates,or the rates increased instead of dropping
further.

Mexico has strict gun control,and a high gun homicide rate.

Again;
There is NO nation on Earth that has successfully banned guns.
They all still have gun crimes.




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.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms,
distributed as follows by mode of
death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal
Intervention 323; Undetermined
231.(CDC, 2004)

My guess is most of those Suicide and Accident deaths were with
legal
guns. I would also guess many of the homicides were with legal guns.
(all guns were originally "legal";how does it matter when one is killed?)

Do you have any better stats?


Well,you can delete the suicides;as they are one's own CHOICE,and means-
independent anyways.Then compare to over 250 MILLION guns owned.
Thus,the rate of misuse is extremely low.Then you look at the number of
legit DGUs(Defensive Gun Uses)and see that guns are used FAR more for GOOD
than evil.Disarming people would make them more vulnerable to criminals;is
that what you wish?
In the UK,burglars have little fear of entering an occupied home,and
stealing while the dwellers are home.Their at-home rate of burglary is much
higher than the US,where criminals run a great risk of getting SHOT if
someone is at home.



Note: The statistical information I have quoted is not without issues.
While I have tried to locate better data and have asked if anyone has
better more reliable unbiased data, I have yet to find sources that I
consider really good.

Meaning sources that suit your worldview?
That's a common tactic with anti-gun people.They don't dispute the
data,they discard it because of the source,regardless of where the data
actually came from.

The NRA actually is a good source for gun research,so is www.guncite.org.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
..

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)


http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/...S/GUNSTAT.html
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms,
distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide
11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC,
2004)

OK,now compare that to over 2 MILLION legit DGUs in the US each year.
DGUs/legal gun ownership wins overwhelmingly.

BTW,DGUs include instances where the gun is simply displayed and the crook
flees,without any shot being fired.Of course,there is no requirement that
these cases be reported,and people may choose not to report them,to avoid
"red tape" or even being treated as a criminal themselves.
They still are legit DGUs.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
alt.home.repair, says...
"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Malcolm Hoar" wrote

Personally, I'd like to see mandatory prison sentences for
"driving without paying attention [to the driving]".

I've seen people talking on the cell phone, changing channels on the
radio, slapping Junior, putting on makeup, eating a taco, reading, and
picking their nose while driving. AND DOING IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
And I hear people who moan, Oh, I can do more than just drive.

Failure to pay full time and attention to driving. I think if they
VIGOROUSLY enforced that law, that they could ticket people for just
about anything they are doing while driving if the officer saw that it
caused them to weave or do something not a part of driving.

I DO NOT TALK ON THE CELL WHILE DRIVING. I tell people I will call
them back, or I pull over. I see these stupid little girls with the
cell phone to their ear BEING HELD BY THE OPPOSITE HAND (what's up
with that) and they look like a pretzel. And usually, they're right
on my ass. (I love hitting the brakes and watching their faces.)

They ought to make getting a driver's license and keeping one at least
as hard as getting a gun permit.

Steve




Vermont requires NO permit,open or concealed carry.
I have not heard of any big problem there,either;no "blood running in the
streets".

Nope, just hot and cold running taxes.

Alaska recently adopted that "system",too.

Alaska did Vermont one better. They give one the option of a
permit, though none are required.

But I agree with your comments about drivers not paying attention to their
driving. I've had quite a number of close calls because of them.
Especially the SUVs,they all think they are invulnerable.

SUVs are no worse than any others. Yuppie soccer-moms in Subarus
are no better than the worst of the SUV soccer-moms.

--
Keith

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
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.


If it was proven that a legally owned gun in the home was more
likely to
kill someone in the family by suicide or murder that to provide self
defiance, what would you say?


if it was proven that the gun was instrumental in defending a family
member,what would you say then?

BTW,the data shows legit DGUs happen FAR more often than criminal
misuse,even when you include your suicides.


You just won't accept it,because it doesn't fit with your worldview.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns,
especially hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in
the army during the Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at
that time, while I scored well with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket
launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the 45 hand gun. I was
also not trained in the type of situations that would be most
likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening
targets meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent
person that a real threat. And quite frankly I would not want to
be responsible for someone's death even if they were threatening me.

I'm not well-trained in flying a 747 but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't TRY if the choice was between me doing my best it up and
crashing for sure. Trust me, it doesn't matter whether one is
well-trained. Even the
well-trained can die. But a possibility of living, small as it may
be, is a far, far greater good than the certainity of death.


Why is it that so many of the so-called civilian uses of guns to
protect others have turned out to be someone who has been
professionally trained?

It hasn't. Just where did you come up with that itty bitty nugget of
disinformation?


Probably Brady Campaign;formerly known as Handgun Control,Inc.

BTW,I've read of many elderly using guns to defend themselves,and they were
NOT professionally trained.

A Q for Meehan;since I have done military service,does that mean I have
been "professionally trained"?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
...
...


I come from a country where gun ownership has been largely
prohibited for decades. The bad guys don't seem to find
a problem obtaining firearms. The bad guys are armed and
the good guys are not! This would be the result, as sure
as night follows day. Does that sound like a desirable
state of affairs to you?


What county is that? What is their rate of deaths by guns,
compared to
the US?

Maybe you should be looking at their total crime rate?
What does it matter HOW one is murdered,robbed,or raped?



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

David Starr wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:26:40 -0800, Oren wrote:


You make the guns illegal and I fail to turn mine over to authorities.
Now my guns are illegal.

When guns are outlawed; ONLY, outlaws will have guns.

And there'll be a lot of us outlaws, too.


No,that's when the revolution starts.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:57:03 -0500, David Starr
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:26:40 -0800, Oren wrote:


You make the guns illegal and I fail to turn mine over to authorities.
Now my guns are illegal.

When guns are outlawed; ONLY, outlaws will have guns.

And there'll be a lot of us outlaws, too.

Imagine if they had taken the Hickory stick (bat) from Beauford Pusser
(Walking Tall).

Oh, sorry he was the Sheriff.