On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:19:54 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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?

I would like Joseph too explain why some Homo sapiens cannot function
in society.

I have a guess - he is against Execution.?!

On 18 Dec 2007 23:41:30 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

How is that?

krw wrote in
t:



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.



I've had far more SUVs nearly sideswipe me,because they as so tall and
overlook lower autos.SUVs,having more mass,are harder to stop on slick
surfaces,and SUVs,being taller,are more prone to rollover.
Getting struck BY a massive SUV is much worse than getting struck by a
ordinary passenger auto.There's a greater chance of climb-over,too,where
the SUV ends up on TOP of the lower ordinary auto,MUCH more hazardous for
other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
alt.home.repair, says...
krw wrote in
t:



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.



I've had far more SUVs nearly sideswipe me,because they as so tall and
overlook lower autos.SUVs,having more mass,are harder to stop on slick
surfaces,and SUVs,being taller,are more prone to rollover.
Getting struck BY a massive SUV is much worse than getting struck by a
ordinary passenger auto.There's a greater chance of climb-over,too,where
the SUV ends up on TOP of the lower ordinary auto,MUCH more hazardous for

So buy one.

other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.

No, they really aren't.

--
Keith

On Dec 18, 3:38 pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote innews




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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think his definition of "professionaly trained" is anyone, anywhere,
any time that has used a weapon to deter a criminal, i.e., the use
proves they were trained.

Harry K

"krw" wrote

Talk of dickhead yuppies in SUVs snipped ..........

So buy one.

other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.

No, they really aren't.

--
Keith

My big new Dodge 2500 truck will make short work of them in a collision.
Have had it a year now, and in that time, I've seen news stories of three
crashes in Vegas with big pickups and SUVs, and it's hard to even see the
color of the SUV. The big trucks got crunched, but the occupants walked
away. All three were from SUV red light runners.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"krw" wrote

Talk of dickhead yuppies in SUVs snipped ..........

So buy one.

other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.
No, they really aren't.

--
Keith

My big new Dodge 2500 truck will make short work of them in a collision.
Have had it a year now, and in that time, I've seen news stories of three
crashes in Vegas with big pickups and SUVs, and it's hard to even see the
color of the SUV. The big trucks got crunched, but the occupants walked
away. All three were from SUV red light runners.

Steve

In Fire & Rescue we have a saying. The vehicle with the most lug nuts
wins. It's pretty simple physics.
--
Tom Horne

Jim Yanik wrote:
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.


I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he compared democracy to two
wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and liberty to an
armed sheep contesting the outcome of the vote.
--
Tom Horne

In article TW3aj.28594$JW4.25952@trnddc05, alt.home.repair,
says...
SteveB wrote:
"krw" wrote

Talk of dickhead yuppies in SUVs snipped ..........

So buy one.

other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.
No, they really aren't.

--
Keith

My big new Dodge 2500 truck will make short work of them in a collision.
Have had it a year now, and in that time, I've seen news stories of three
crashes in Vegas with big pickups and SUVs, and it's hard to even see the
color of the SUV. The big trucks got crunched, but the occupants walked
away. All three were from SUV red light runners.


Sounds like more reasons poor drivers _should_ buy SUVs, rather
than SUVs are inherently unsafe.

In Fire & Rescue we have a saying. The vehicle with the most lug nuts
wins. It's pretty simple physics.

The biggest-oldest vehicle has the right-of-way. Pretty simple
economics. ;-)

--
Keith

In article ,
krw wrote:



The biggest-oldest vehicle has the right-of-way. Pretty simple
economics. ;-)

Roger that. I had people getting out of their cars and kneeling down,
waving me on, when I was driving my 1980 Cadillac. People pulling off
the road like it was an ambulance or something.

Still wasn't enough to keep the next owner out of trouble. Sold it for
$100 and the guy was arrested an hour later for hit and run, drunk
driving, driving without a license, and driving without insurance.
(Must've been the ten beers he told the cops he'd drunk that morning.)

In article -
media.com, alt.home.repair, says...
In article ,
krw wrote:



The biggest-oldest vehicle has the right-of-way. Pretty simple
economics. ;-)

Roger that. I had people getting out of their cars and kneeling down,
waving me on, when I was driving my 1980 Cadillac. People pulling off
the road like it was an ambulance or something.

Still wasn't enough to keep the next owner out of trouble. Sold it for
$100 and the guy was arrested an hour later for hit and run, drunk
driving, driving without a license, and driving without insurance.
(Must've been the ten beers he told the cops he'd drunk that morning.)

Add switched plates and on parole from the state pen and he was the
guy that T-boned me (ran a stop sign), some years back. My
insurance company told me "we'll refund your deductible after he
pays our claim". Yeah, right.

--
Keith

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article TW3aj.28594$JW4.25952@trnddc05, alt.home.repair,
says...
SteveB wrote:
"krw" wrote

Talk of dickhead yuppies in SUVs snipped ..........

So buy one.

other vehicles.Yes,they ARE worse.
No, they really aren't.

--
Keith

My big new Dodge 2500 truck will make short work of them in a
collision.
Have had it a year now, and in that time, I've seen news stories of
three
crashes in Vegas with big pickups and SUVs, and it's hard to even see
the
color of the SUV. The big trucks got crunched, but the occupants
walked
away. All three were from SUV red light runners.


Sounds like more reasons poor drivers _should_ buy SUVs, rather
than SUVs are inherently unsafe.

In Fire & Rescue we have a saying. The vehicle with the most lug nuts
wins. It's pretty simple physics.

The biggest-oldest vehicle has the right-of-way. Pretty simple
economics. ;-)

--
Keith

Reminds me of Kathy Bates line in Fried Green Tomatoes after two bimbos in a
VW stole her parking place and she rammed it six or seven times ......
"Face it, girls. I'm older and have more insurance."

Steve

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
See Combined Response

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Joseph, you're scaring me.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
See Combined Response

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

Geez, Meehan, how many times are you going to post the same empty message?

--
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
.. .
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?

I have looked, but, it is not there or I just did not find it. I have
asked for facts before and I will also ask that if you have any facts,
preferable with references to the sources, I would appreciate them.

You haven't been looking very hard. The FBI maintains all sorts of statistics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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?

Well, not exactly. In the US we no longer have much use for guns as a
basic need. Hunting, while it a source of food, it is seldom the sole or
even primary reason for hunting. Various forms of target shooting is
enjoyable (yes I have enjoyed target shooting) but the risks to society are
too great in my opinion for the benefits.

You are failing to consider the risks inherent to a disarmed society:
1) The criminal element will always find a way to obtain arms. They can be
stolen from law enforcement or the military, smuggled from overseas, or
manufactured clandestinely. Disarmed law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy
of armed criminals; the police can't be everywhere.
2) A society in which many or most people are armed is safe from foreign
invasion.
3) A society in which many or most people are armed is also same from domestic
tyranny -- the American Revolution is a good example.

How do you feel about removing cars from the hands of those who have
convicted of drunk driving?

The same way I feel about removing firearms from the hands of those who misuse
them in a way that harms or endangers others: wholeheartedly in support.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"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?


I don't consider the owner, unless they are negligent (which happens far
too often, but I suspect is a very small percentage of gun owners) to be at
fault. I consider the easy access to guns to be at fault. I believe the
risk associated with wide spread gun ownership to be sufficiently great to
justify restrictions.

You just don't get it.

The problem is NOT with "wide spread gun ownership": the overwhelming majority
of gun owners own them legally, and never misuse them in any fashion.

The problem is with widespread criminal misuse of guns, almost entirely by
those who are not in legal possession thereof.

Laws restricting possession of guns will have no effect on the behavior of
criminals -- who are, by definition, people who don't obey laws. Laws clearly
do not, and cannot, eliminate crime. They only provide a mechanism for
*responding* to crime *after* it has been committed.

I don't consider gun owners bad people.

Then why do you want to take guns away from us, while leaving them in the
hands of criminals?

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

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:
See Combined Response

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...


Could you post whatever this "combined response" thing is just one more
time?

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

The onus for producing this data is on those who would ban
and control gun ownership. It is they, after all, who would
seek to change the status quo and eliminate a liberty that
is currently enshrined in the second amendment.

Your position seems to have shifted from "ban all guns" to
"there isn't sufficient data to support that proposal".

Perhaps you should conduct the definitive study and submit
it for peer review when ready? We'll be waiting and
prepared to provide constructive feedback ;-)

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

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
See Combined Response

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...

Geez, Meehan, how many times are you going to post the same empty message?

Looks like spam to me.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

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

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,

I guess until really good information is available, we will
continue to disagree. It is hard to believe that really good
information is not available, but it does appear that way.

The fact that you choose to ignore facts is not the same as the the absence
of fact. There are plenty of people, like yourself, who are "Fact Deniers";
they believe that the world is flat, that Americans never walked on the
moon, and that the Big Mac is the ultimate burger.

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?


I commented on specific cases that were presented by others to
prove that privately owned guns have prevented or ended high profile
situations.

No... what you did is try to limit your examples to an ambiguous and
self-serving definition of a tight cohort which not only is just plain
silly, it has no applicability to the actual daily use of firearms in
personal protection. Again, you try to pick and choose facts not in
existence to support your unsupportable agenda.


Of those cases, I found that the people who were involved
in ending the situation were professionally trained.

You have *failed* to make the point, because you have failed to distinguish
why the training of a long-retired professional is any different than anyone
else who has taken classes and developed shooting skills. The fact is this:
the former is often more poorly trained and a worse shot than the latter.
You have also failed to make your point, because you have tried to
self-select examples to serve a thesis that is a lie. And your thesis has no
bearing on whether 2.9 million protective actions occured with the use of
guns in the hands of potential victims.

I have no and
have not seen any other information. have you?

It has been pointed out to you.

I have looked for
it, but I have not found much and most of that is dubious at best.

No one is surprised by that statement. Anything that doesn't support your
closed-minded thinking would be dismissed. Bwahahahaha. The problem is, the
facts don't depend on you for approval.

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


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



What are the overall rates and the rates by gun in both countries?
How about other countries? Could you reference your sources?

Sorry, Bubba, but you're not going to wiggle around and try to reposition
YOUR argument. You made the statement that GUNS were more likely to be used
in suicides. Therefore, according to your logic, the data for suicides would
show a lower rate in countries in which guns are not prevelant.


Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

"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



Exactly. I can only put out guesses because I have not been able
to find real answers, so I guess AND ask for real information.

I try to be fair. I tend to realize that unbiased information
seems to be lacking so we are all trying to make educated guesses. Some
people have a problem of not being able to admit that their
opinions are based on their guesses. (Note: not everyone who
disagrees with me has fallen into that trap, but some have.)

You have chosen to reject information by tagging a 'bias' line onto those
sources which don't support your notions. That you fail to show that the
facts provided are biased puts the lie to your statement that you try to be
fair and that you truly seek information.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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



Suicide is a very sad thing. You are right that at least some
people who chose guns for suicide would find another way. However I
believe it is reasonable to believe that some will not, and may find
help before they do.

And yet the fact that some countries with very strict gun control and
ownership have HIGHER suicide rates than America, puts the lie to your
supposition. Suicide, like criminal behavior, is driven by the individual
mindset NOT the presence of an inanimate object.

This is just one more of the issues where more facts would be very
welcome by me, but I have not been able to find any.

You've got to actually open your eyes and your mind in order for that to
occur. So, just keep trying to appear 'reasonable', cause it is funny to
watch you do the contortions necessary to avoid the facts, while claiming to
be seeking them. You're just like O.J. Simpson who claimed he was going to
spend every waking moment looking for the 'real' killer.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 07:55:02 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
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.



True.

I'm Number 1


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?


Sorry to disappoint you, but I did enlist. Frankly I had three choices.

Why would you think that you might disappoint me? I only had two
choices!!

1. Enlist and be commissioned

I was going to be drafted, so why enlist?!

2. Be drafted. It was a sure thing in my case

My number came up for December and I ask the Selective Service to move
my date up. I drafted in July.

3. Leave the US.

NOT even an option.

I did not qualify as a conscientious objector as you must be against all
war to do so, not just a specific war that you believe to be immoral and/or
illogical.

So you did apply as CO or just looked into it - Before you enlisted?

I chose to enlist. I was about two months from being assigned duty as
forward observer in Nam when the war was winding down and I was contacted
and asked if I would like a honorable discharge as they had more men trained
in my area than they needed. I took up the offer.

I came back from a long week end in Frankfurt and the boys were
yelling that I was going home. 18 months on a 24 month draft. Not bad
I say...

You mention bias in data, etc... A professor told me one time to
always consider bias in any book, reports, etc. His point was to think
for myself and not gobble down what a person declares.

You and I are biased on gun control.

We could repeal all criminal codes, and then we wouldn't not have any
crime)

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were thwarted,
are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not entered into the crime
statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Steve

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:15:41 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were thwarted,
are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not entered into the crime
statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

He is not a troll, just not singing off the same page as many folk in
the USA or this group thread. Is that statistics?!!

My revolver is 25 years old. The stats: it has less than 100 rounds
fired. For sighting, mostly..but I do keep it around for safety.

Now this weapon is antique, designed 25 years ago for LEO.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Ya get bored easy Steve? Cabin fever?!!

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been
able to find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted, are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not
entered into the crime statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Steve




after that last spamfest of the same reply,he became a killfile resident.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 27 Dec 2007 01:54:05 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

after that last spamfest of the same reply,he became a killfile resident.

Why, Not because he had opinion, right?

I have my guns and he did not influence my opinion..

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:15:41 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able
to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted,
are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not entered into the
crime
statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

He is not a troll, just not singing off the same page as many folk in
the USA or this group thread. Is that statistics?!!

My revolver is 25 years old. The stats: it has less than 100 rounds
fired. For sighting, mostly..but I do keep it around for safety.

Now this weapon is antique, designed 25 years ago for LEO.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Ya get bored easy Steve? Cabin fever?!!

Yes, I get bored with droning anti-gunners picking and choosing statistics
that aren't pertinent, relevant, or even applicable. They are solely based
on emotion, and they are not very good drama queens at that.

People don't want to carry a gun? Then don't. It's a simple thing. Just
don't dare to tell me what I can/should/ought/have to do.

Some people here live in whitebread rural America. Others live in the
hardscrabble streets of Megalopolis. Huge difference. What works in
Bozotown doesn't work in Hugetown. And people in Bozotown cannot perceive
the way of life for someone in Hugetown. And the need to be on guard and
alert, lest you fall prey. I really don't mind their ignorance, and
understand it now that I live in a town of 1200. Moved here from a city of
two million. If someone from here moved to the big city, they'd likely be
undergoing an attitude adjustment early on.

Steve

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:10:43 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:15:41 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able
to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted,
are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not entered into the
crime
statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

He is not a troll, just not singing off the same page as many folk in
the USA or this group thread. Is that statistics?!!

My revolver is 25 years old. The stats: it has less than 100 rounds
fired. For sighting, mostly..but I do keep it around for safety.

Now this weapon is antique, designed 25 years ago for LEO.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Ya get bored easy Steve? Cabin fever?!!

Yes, I get bored with droning anti-gunners picking and choosing statistics
that aren't pertinent, relevant, or even applicable. They are solely based
on emotion, and they are not very good drama queens at that.

People don't want to carry a gun? Then don't. It's a simple thing. Just
don't dare to tell me what I can/should/ought/have to do.

Some people here live in whitebread rural America. Others live in the
hardscrabble streets of Megalopolis. Huge difference. What works in
Bozotown doesn't work in Hugetown. And people in Bozotown cannot perceive
the way of life for someone in Hugetown. And the need to be on guard and
alert, lest you fall prey. I really don't mind their ignorance, and
understand it now that I live in a town of 1200. Moved here from a city of
two million. If someone from here moved to the big city, they'd likely be
undergoing an attitude adjustment early on.

Steve


My population went to 2 MIL in 13 years...double... you know that

Size don't matter. Can a person absorb the impact? I saw a man (not
here) walk with numerous 9mm (6-9) chest wounds. I saw a grown man,
very large suffer six stab wounds to the chest, only to collapse 50
yards away. When I escorted him to local hospital, the nurse asked
what was wrong. Explain too her I was not a doctor, but that I thought
the gurgling foam was a very serious chest wound - and the guy just
ran out of air.

"Oren" wrote


My population went to 2 MIL in 13 years...double... you know that

Size don't matter. Can a person absorb the impact? I saw a man (not
here) walk with numerous 9mm (6-9) chest wounds. I saw a grown man,
very large suffer six stab wounds to the chest, only to collapse 50
yards away. When I escorted him to local hospital, the nurse asked
what was wrong. Explain too her I was not a doctor, but that I thought
the gurgling foam was a very serious chest wound - and the guy just
ran out of air.

Mebbe so. But when it comes to gun control, you can't fix stupid.

Steve

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

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it. The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been able
to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain, right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted, are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not entered
into the crime statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Steve

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense
out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns are both
important issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge not
ignorance and gut feelings.

I am looking for an answer.

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.

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

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

Joseph Meehan wrote:

The fact that you choose to ignore facts is not the same as the the
absence of fact. There are plenty of people, like yourself, who are
"Fact Deniers"; they believe that the world is flat, that Americans
never walked on the moon, and that the Big Mac is the ultimate
burger.

What exact "facts" am I ignoring.

Sorry, but if you want someone to regurgitate what was previously presented
you have mistaken this ng for alt.bulemia.anorexia.

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?

I commented on specific cases that were presented by others to
prove that privately owned guns have prevented or ended high profile
situations.

No... what you did is try to limit your examples to an ambiguous and
self-serving definition of a tight cohort which not only is just
plain silly, it has no applicability to the actual daily use of
firearms in personal protection. Again, you try to pick and choose
facts not in existence to support your unsupportable agenda.

You are welcome to your opinions. Do you have a better set of
documented examples?

Plenty of facts were presented, as well as sources for facts. If you wish,
feel free to introduce your sources.

Of those cases, I found that the people who were involved
in ending the situation were professionally trained.

You have *failed* to make the point, because you have failed to
distinguish why the training of a long-retired professional is any
different than anyone else who has taken classes and developed
shooting skills. The fact is this: the former is often more poorly
trained and a worse shot than the latter. You have also failed to
make your point, because you have tried to self-select examples to
serve a thesis that is a lie. And your thesis has no bearing on
whether 2.9 million protective actions occured with the use of guns
in the hands of potential victims.

What is this long-retied stuff?

Let's get back to the point. Do you have any evidence that real
people in well documented and reported cases who have not been
properly trained in the use of firearms in the type of situations,
have been successful in stopping a crimes?

This is how tedious and silly your lame argument against guns are. Define
'well-trained'. You keep trying to slip and slide with your original
statement in which you said 'professionals'. Now you're saying 'well
trained'. And the point isn't 'training', the point is 'how many uses of
firearms, by civilians outside of ANY police agency or force, are used to
prevent or stop the bad guys from comitting a crime'. Now, show us your
facts that show that ordinary folks DON'T use guns to stop crimes.

I have no and
have not seen any other information. have you?

It has been pointed out to you.

I have looked for
it, but I have not found much and most of that is dubious at best.

No one is surprised by that statement. Anything that doesn't support
your closed-minded thinking would be dismissed. Bwahahahaha. The
problem is, the facts don't depend on you for approval.

I have tried not to be closed minded, but I do wonder about you.

You have provided faulty stats, claimed a lack of access to information that
is easily found via Google, have tried to ignore facts presented by claiming
that a source for the facts is biased but without demonstrating that those
facts are incorrect, and constantly trying to redefine the issues presented
in order to backpeddle.





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



What are the overall rates and the rates by gun in both countries?
How about other countries? Could you reference your sources?

Sorry, Bubba, but you're not going to wiggle around and try to
reposition YOUR argument. You made the statement that GUNS were more
likely to be used in suicides. Therefore, according to your logic,
the data for suicides would show a lower rate in countries in which
guns are not prevelant.

You have presented data without references and and I have asked
for the sources and additional data, if available, to help analyze the
data. You fail to provide an answer and you say I am trying to
wiggle .....

The data came from WHO,
http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre...iciderates/en/ and was
stated in my OP. You want to help 'analyize' the data? I think you meant to
say that you want to try and 'spin' the data.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make
sense out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns are
both important issues and should be approached from a position of
knowledge not ignorance and gut feelings.

Well, let's open up all Constitutional Amendments using your statement
above:

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense out
of it. I believe Speech Control and the right to Speak are both important
issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge not ignorance
and gut feelings.

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense out
of it. I believe Press Control and the right to Disseminate News are both
important issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge not
ignorance and gut feelings.

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense out
of it. I believe Religious Control and the right to Attend The Church of
One's Choosing are both important issues and should be approached from a
position of knowledge not ignorance and gut feelings.

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense out
of it. I believe Peaceable Assembly Control and the right to Peaceably
Assemble are both important issues and should be approached from a position
of knowledge not ignorance and gut feelings.

You seem to miss the point of the Constitution. The Constituiton does not
permit the government to 'give' people rights. The Constitution recognizes
that people ALREADY have rights that cannot be infringed upon. The purpose
of the Constitutional Amendments was to make clear to the government that it
has no ability or power to limit our rights, and to instruct government on
ITS limitations to impose itself on The People.

I am looking for an answer.

No, what you are looking for is a loophole in the Rights of The People to
legitimize imposing your will on the rest of us. And you are frustrated
because the extent of your ability to levy such an imposition is limited to
your own personal choice of having, or not having, a gun.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

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

You have chosen to reject information by tagging a 'bias' line onto
those sources which don't support your notions. That you fail to
show that the facts provided are biased puts the lie to your
statement that you try to be fair and that you truly seek
information.

I intended that line to apply to all the sources I have seen,
including those supporting gun control. However "bias" is not really
the most accurate term for my opinion. Inconclusive might be better.
There is a lot of bias information out there (on both sides) I would
like to get past that and lacking the ability to do that to
acknowledge that good information is not available or has not been
presented at this time.

Your statement is a Straw Man. The good sources are there, some have been
presented in this thread. You keep stating that you are waiting for good
information, and yet those who have a true interest, and have accessed the
data, never waited for it to show up. You honestly don't expect us to
believe that you cannot find data with the current resources that anyone has
at their fingertips, do you?

And yet the fact that some countries with very strict gun control and
ownership have HIGHER suicide rates than America, puts the lie to
your supposition. Suicide, like criminal behavior, is driven by the
individual mindset NOT the presence of an inanimate object.

I have a problem with that statement. Viewing it as possible
reliable data, I would suggest that "some countries" suggest selected
data.

No, it is a statement that relatively few countries, as a whole, have
extremely strict gun control.

All I have been asking for is good data. Please if you have
good data (that might include data for all countries, but certainly
not selected countries) please present it.

So, you don't like the UN /WHO as a source?

I don't know what it may
indicate, but with out the data neither you nor I nor anyone knows.

Knows what? Your original statement that access to guns is the reason for
high suicide rates? It seems that again, you are trying to obfuscate because
you know that that statement is inaccurate.

They may believe, which is great in religion, but for making public
policy it is not very good.

And yet you have been making dogmatic statements about guns which, by your
own admission, is based on your lack of information. And there is no 'public
policy' which can be made with regard to suicide anyway; laws already are on
the books prohibiting the ownership of guns by those who are a harm to
themselves or others.

This is just one more of the issues where more facts would be very
welcome by me, but I have not been able to find any.

You've got to actually open your eyes and your mind in order for
that to occur. So, just keep trying to appear 'reasonable', cause it
is funny to watch you do the contortions necessary to avoid the
facts, while claiming to be seeking them. You're just like O.J.
Simpson who claimed he was going to spend every waking moment
looking for the 'real' killer.

So why do you not offer to provide some of this data? Have you
ever seen really valid convincing data? Are you just convinced that
what you believe could not be wrong?

A non-sequitor. The data was provided, along with the source.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:35:18 -0800, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

You two have been squawking at each other like a couple of hens for a
week now, going in circles, with no progress on either side. Maybe you
should get a room for your tryst.

:-) I'm fine, but thanks just the same.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

(Doug Miller) wrote in
t:

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

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it.
The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been
able to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain,
right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted, are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not
entered into the crime statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Steve

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make
sense
out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns are both
important issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge
not ignorance and gut feelings.

I am looking for an answer.

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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

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

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I agree that we need to look at all the data. I welcome it.
The
problem is I have not found it and it appears others have not been
able to
find it. We are all working with insuficent data.

You're joking and you're just a troll pulling everyone's chain,
right?

Look at all the data? Preposterous! Non-crimes, those that were
thwarted, are not reported a lot, and if they are, they are not
entered into the crime statistic database much of the time.

Any reasonable man can find statistics to support any preconceived
conclusion. Dealing with reality is a little different.

Joseph, you are really getting to be a bore.

Steve

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make
sense
out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns are both
important issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge
not ignorance and gut feelings.

I am looking for an answer.

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.

Kleck definitely was -- not sure you're right about Lott.

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

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

"Joseph Meehan" wrote

I am an economist. We live by examining data and trying to make sense
out of it. I believe gun control and the right to own guns are both
important issues and should be approached from a position of knowledge not
ignorance and gut feelings.

I am looking for an answer.



--
Joseph Meehan

There is no answer, Joseph. Each person lives in their own fish bowl. Each
is different. There is no straight across the board approach. It all
depends on your own fish bowl.

Who, in particular, are you accusing of approaching this with "ignorance and
gut feelings"? I did snip a good bit of myself you had quoted. Were you
referring to me?

Steve

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Oren" wrote


My population went to 2 MIL in 13 years...double... you know that

Size don't matter. Can a person absorb the impact? I saw a man (not
here) walk with numerous 9mm (6-9) chest wounds. I saw a grown man,
very large suffer six stab wounds to the chest, only to collapse 50
yards away. When I escorted him to local hospital, the nurse asked
what was wrong. Explain too her I was not a doctor, but that I thought
the gurgling foam was a very serious chest wound - and the guy just
ran out of air.

Mebbe so. But when it comes to gun control, you can't fix stupid.

Steve



True, you can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorance.

--
Joseph Meehan

I suggest you begin.

Steve

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.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:10:44 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote

relative stuff snipped

plonk



***** PLONK ***** ***** PLONK ***** ***** PLONK *****

wrote

relative stuff snipped

plonk