bpuharic wrote:

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

how's that defense thingie working out?

Uh, no. We do NOT have the highest "homicide" rate of developed countries.
We're (let me count, mumble-mumble, carry the three...), ah, forty-sixth in
homicide rates. Admittedly, some of the countries ahead of us are less than
fully developed, but the list does include:
* Jamaica
* Belize
* Brazil
* Ecuador
* Mexico
* Costa Rica
* Lithuania
* Turkey
* Agrentina

Which no one could classify as anything but "developed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

RicodJour wrote:

Interesting. Probability of being hit by lightning interesting, but
interesting. That's my issue with the whole gun thing. I don't care
if people own guns any more than I care if people own fireworks or
jet planes, but people whip out these astoundingly remote
possibilities as justification for owning a gun. I suppose it's akin
to telling the wife that you _need_ the new Porsche four door sedan
(screaming car, BTW, but kinda ugly) in case you have to rush someone
to the hospital at 180 MPH. I mean it could happen, right, honey, so
can I get it - for safety's sake....?


Do you feel the same way about fire insurance? A house fire is also an
astonishingly rare event (at least for those who change the batteries in
their smoke detectors).

Point is, one weighs the probability of the occurrence against the magnitude
of the harm, coupled with the cost to prevent or recover from that harm.

Owning a gun is cheap compared to the cost of the (admittedly rare)
situation that you might need it. $400 vs. my life... let me think.

Steve B wrote:

Carrying a firearm is near the bottom of the list. I'd rank the
defenses as:

* Avoiding dangerous situations and locations
* Leave any situation that develops
* Try to de-escalate the confrontation
* Carry a firearm
* Display the firearm
* Shoot the goblin if unlawful force is threatened.


Displaying a firearm and not using it can be considered as
"brandishing a firearm" in many states.

Scenario: Bad guys want to rob you. You "display" firearm and they
retreat. They go to police officer and state that you waved a gun at
them. One lies and the other swears to it. You get arrested and lose
your permit.
You never pull a gun unless you shoot it.


I say you're wrong. Displaying a firearm and NOT shooting it is meritorious
and worthy of praise. You've prevented a disaster and no one died.

You are correct that the object of my affections may take it the wrong way
and get all ****y, and I'd certainly take his attitude into account before
escalating the conflict to a potential shoot-out.

On the two occasions I've had to display my sidearm, the actors would have
to bathe, put down their tire-iron, and wipe the drool from their chins
before making a complaint.

In my state, you can't lose your permit simply because you were arrested.

benick wrote:


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...

I carry a gun because a cop won't fit in my pocket..

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Guns don't kill people , PEOPLE kill people...

CAUTION...Homeowner is armed...


I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46.

Keep Honking - I'm Reloading

I carry a gun for EXACTLY the same reasons a cop does.

On Jan 11, 12:52*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"DGDevin" wrote:
*Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. *Requiring *schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. *Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.

* *Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. *Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
* * I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

Hindsight is a jolly fine thing. Too late for the victims.
Hey will you fry this guy or inject him? What do they do in Arizona?

"harry" wrote in message
...
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona.
I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some
judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?

As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of
the Palin nut?

Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant
thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of
heart.

I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and
the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing
youths who sat on his head.

Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.


It's interesting that no matter what you say in this discussion, you still
enjoy the benefits of the so-called "special relationship" our countries
have had since WWII. Your native language is still NOT German, now is it?

On Jan 11, 1:12*pm, wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:41*am, DD_BobK wrote:





On Jan 10, 11:38*am, RicodJour wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:01*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

Unfortunately...? *You wanted to shoot the dogs? *Interesting. *I've
never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching
him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical until
they actually happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no
information in them. *Everything is theoretical until it happens.
Everything. *It doesn't change the scenario I presented. *Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.

R

R-

I believe your "innocent bystanders hit by random shots from armed
citizens " is a near zero probability event.

If such a thing happened, it would have be reported in the news over &
over again.

What clearly goes unreported by the mainstream media is the numerous
cases where someone with a gun prevents a crime or possible death by
merely pulling out their own gun. * A robber breaks into a
home, the homeowner produces a gun, and the robber retreats. * Or a
guy tries to hold up a liquor store with a gun or a knife and the
owner
*shoots him dead. *Those stories never make it, while the story of
one
nut who shoots someone, usually with an illegal gun, does.

As for the ridiculous claim that running away is more likely to keep
you
alive, if that's the case, why don't they train police to defend
themselves
that way? * *If the suspect pulls a gun, run! *In some circumstances
that
might be the best course of action. * But clearly it doesn't work very
well
in all cases, as the AZ shooting clearly shows.

In the AZ shooting, if one person there had a pistol, the outcome
could
have been much different. * Or the recent FL school board shootings,
where the shooter held the entire school board hostage. * If one
person
*sitting at the school board had a pistol, they wouldn't have had to
sit
there, waiting for him to shoot them at will.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hah. Resorting to making up stories now. Lots of people had pistols in
Tucson but they all wet their pants because they were afraid. The
little old lady sorted the ******* out. She was probably Annie Oakley
or Calamity Jane. Heh Heh

On Jan 11, 1:30*pm, wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:52*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

*"DGDevin" wrote:
*Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. *Requiring *schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. *Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.

* *Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. *Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
* * I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

Unfortunately, I think you are correct, at least in the general
case. * We
don't know all the specifics on what the indicators there were in this
particular
case. * But with the clear bias in favor or personal freedom, I don't
know who is supposed to be the enforcer if you will, or the canary in
the coal mine, as to who is to be locked up or monitored because
they might be a threat. * IMO, in most cases it would have to be
*someone very close to the person in question, eg parents or spouse.
They would have to see enough indicators that the person was deranged
to the point of being a danger.
*And they would have to take action and probably convince a court that
*the person is a danger. *And clearly, in many cases, that isn't going
to happen.

You could say that because this guy made
some death threats, the police should have pursued it, got him
committed to a psych hospital, etc. * But how realistic is that? *We
don't know all the data. *I could see police making a judgement call
that they could waste a lot of time on hundreds of guys like this,
only
to lose all of them in court because the guy gets a lawyer and
convinces
a judge that he really isn't a serious threat. * Haven't we seen
enough
guys with far more red flags than this guy released by judges,
including those that had already committed serious crimes? *Even
if the loon is acting out in front of police, AFAIK, the basic
procedure
is to take them involuntarily to a hospital for an evaluation. * A Dr.
will then do a simple, basic evaluation and if there is no indication
the person is a threat to himself or others, they have to let him go.
That's what they did with Charlie Sheen, when he went nuts at
the Plaza Hotel in NYC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have seen death threats on this forum. Are the police going to act?

On Jan 11, 1:41*am, DD_BobK wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:38*am, RicodJour wrote:

Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.


R-

I believe your "innocent bystanders hit by random shots from armed
citizens " is a near zero probability event.

You mean like the near zero probability event of having a shooter
suddenly open up in a crowd? That is the first near zero probability
event, and without that first zero probability event occurring, my
zero probability event is of course pegged at zero, but let's run with
it - it happens, and other people start shooting, too. Do you
honestly believe that everyone is going to stand around to let the
concerned citizen get off a clean shot? What if there are a number of
armed concerned citizens standing on all sides of the shooter, which
is the usual state of affairs in a crowd. Would the concerned
citizens communicate wordlessly and decide who had the best shot, hold
off and let that guy take the shot? Or would it be everyone take
their best shot? Wouldn't the bad guy be trying really hard not to
get shot?

If such a thing happened, it would have be reported in the news over &
over again.

Bystanders getting shot is usually a "poor *******, but look what that
crazy guy with the gun did to start the whole thing!" Back seat news,
perhaps. Much like friendly fire statistics everywhere else they're
footnotes and back page fodder.

It is my opinion (based on very little data) that armed citizens
responding to bad guys are much more careful shooters.

We're not talking about one guy pulling a gun to stop a robbery.
We're talking about pandemonium in a crowd. People running, ducking,
hitting the deck, screaming, and that cool, calm, definitely blue-eyed
citizen calmly pulls his gun, waits for a clear shot and picks off the
bad guy standing behind his hostage human shield. Could happen. In a
movie.

They lack the "legal cover" that police officers enjoy. *A cop can
empty his gun at a target and few question it.

There's a lot of truth in that.

In a suburb of LA, LA County Deputy Sheriffs (10 of them) fired 120
shots at a guy in a Suburban.
He turned out to be unarmed, luckily they only hit him with four shots
but they did manage to hit one of their own.

And these were trained professionals, right? So even the pros can
miss the mark - but that isn't a surprise.
http://www.schlissellawfirm.com/blog...-cant-sue-nyc/

Total lack of fire discipline...
maybe cops should go back to revolvers, with fewer rounds they might
be more careful or at the very least have fewer total misses.

You should be viewing this in a more analytical way, Bob. It's more
akin to physics and statistics than it is about guns, gun control,
terrorists or any of that.

The more people firing, the more misses and the greater the likelihood
of people getting hit. Friendly fire on home soil at a shopping mall
doesn't make it more palatable. The people standing around when the
stuff goes down are not going to calmly look for the exits. Everybody
who has ever been shot at unexpectedly has had a massive rush of
adrenalin, which does not make for clear thinking and steady hands.

Carrying a gun with you at all times based on the extremely, extremely
remote instance that something really bad is going to happen, and that
a gun can fix it. That is just another form of delusion. It makes
_way_ more sense to know basic first aid and have a defibrillator on
hand as those type of occurrences are far more likely to happen. But
that doesn't sell in Peoria, does it? Which of the following
headlines is going to make it to the front page?
Guy with defibrillator saves life
Armed citizen kills terrorist at pep rally

R

On Jan 11, 1:43*pm, wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:29*am, "benick" wrote:

"frag" wrote in message

web.com...

Palin needs to take her Hit List off the web. And she needs to stop
putting
up that sort of thing.

I thought that is exactly what was done, immediately after it came
under
discussion. * And the election was over months ago. *You're claiming
it's still up? * Link please......

For the record, I thought the way it was done was in very poor taste
and
not something that should have been part of a campaign.





You mean the same kind of thing the DNC had up which is target areas ON A
MAP marked with a bulls eye..You're an IDIOT and shouldn't believe
everything MSNBC regurgitates for you...MORON...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All part of the republican smoke screen to help people forget that it
was them f***d up America.

On Jan 11, 2:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

An unarmed OLD lady. * Where were all the American heros with their
concealed weapons? Probably wetting their pants. Cowardly scum.

Many carry a weapon for SELF defense, not for the defense of a third party.

If one uses deadly force on behalf of someone else, many consequences can
flow - almost all of them bad.

These consequences, such as shooting someone who was not REALLY an aggressor
or shooting a bystander, are not the problem. The thing that is really wrong
is criminalizing these inadvertent deaths instead of treating them as
justifiable or excusable. It is this threat of going to jail that
disincentivizes a would-be rescuer, not cowardice.

I, personally, run to the sound of gunfire (as would many who've served in
the military). But unless I see a perp actually drinking the victim's blood,
I'm going to be quite circumspect before I start piling up the bodies.

Now that's very selfish. You mean that all the gun owners just stood
by and watched Christina Taylor Green being gunned down? My,
aren'tcha all great heroes? What a society! Sounds worse and worse
to me.

"HeyBub" wrote

snip

Bub, remember ...... don't cast your pearls before swine ...........

Steve

On Jan 11, 8:10*am, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete C." wrote nster.com:

It's the same old tired and utterly baseless "wild west" fantasy of
the anti gun kooks. A fantasy since there has never been a single such
incident anywhere in the US, including all the states that have had
concealed carry for decades.

well,that's because the "progressives" don't operate based on fact and
reason,but on "feelings" and imaginations.

Umm, Jim...? Nobody operates on facts all of the time. They only
think they do. The standard procedure, of which both you and I and
everyone else in this and all other threads is guilty of, is cherry
picking data to support their particular belief.

It's well documented that the emotional centers of the brain light up
when "discussions" turn to politics and religion. The emotional
responses rule.

R

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:



Folks with catatonic schizophrenia, sleep or eating disorders,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, gender identity disorder, hypochondria,
agoraphobia, homosexual tendencies, or, in fact, MOST mental problems, may
fit the definition of "mental disease or defect," yet not be a threat to
anyone, including themselves.

Which is the main reason every mental health law that I am familiar
with always has a clause about dangerous to self or others included.
Usually as the first criteria. That and gravely disabled.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Jan 11, 2:47*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. *Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

On Jan 11, 2:57*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

So you think some stupid law will prevent any loon getting a gun in an
America awash with guns?
You ARE in Lala land.

Of course not.

The mentally ill have even MORE reasons to be armed in order to protect
themselves from the predations of those who would do them harm.

Very few mental illnesses can trigger a violent outburst. To prevent a
"mentally ill" person from owning or carrying a gun just because they are
depressed, afflicted with Alzheimer's, narcoleptic, anorexic, bulimic, or
have eighty-two body piercings or one hundred and seven cats, is absurd.

You might stop people with body piercings from owning a gun. They are
definite loons.

On Jan 11, 10:37*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

As to your final question do I believe that everybody should own a gun? No,
I do not.

Such would require a law mandating same. I'd be opposed to that as much as a
law mandating that no one should own a gun.

I do hold that everybody has a "right" to own a gun, but of course all
"rights" have limits.

I hope the above answers your questions.

Thanks for providing a "teaching moment."

You're welcome, but I'm really waiting for your "learning
moment". ~

R

On Jan 11, 3:02*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
*"DGDevin" wrote:

*Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. *Requiring *schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. *Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.
* *Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. *Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
* * I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

You're getting at the fact that there is simply nothing that can ever be
done to prevent this kind of one-off nutcase attack. If guns were not
available he would have used knives, if knives had not been available he
would have used firebombs, etc. We simply have to accept the fact this
this kind of event has always happened throughout human history and will
continue to happen, and is the price we pay for not living in a society
where every single person is confined to their own individual cell.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


What makes you think that mentally ill people have enough connections in the
criminal community to obtain a gun illegally?
25 years as a Psych RN and we take one off of psych patients as we
admit them a couple times a year (the deputies and security do so every
month or so in ER). Talk about rectum slamming shut moments (grin). Many
mental patients hang out on the streets in less than savory
neighborhoods. It is isn't all much trouble to find one if motivated.
They aren't usually your Glocks or high class weapons, but they can get
cheapo guns if they want to look hard enough.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Steve B wrote:

Carrying a firearm is near the bottom of the list. I'd rank the
defenses as:

* Avoiding dangerous situations and locations
* Leave any situation that develops
* Try to de-escalate the confrontation
* Carry a firearm
* Display the firearm
* Shoot the goblin if unlawful force is threatened.


Displaying a firearm and not using it can be considered as
"brandishing a firearm" in many states.

Scenario: Bad guys want to rob you. You "display" firearm and they
retreat. They go to police officer and state that you waved a gun at
them. One lies and the other swears to it. You get arrested and lose
your permit.
You never pull a gun unless you shoot it.


I say you're wrong. Displaying a firearm and NOT shooting it is
meritorious and worthy of praise. You've prevented a disaster and no one
died.

You are correct that the object of my affections may take it the wrong way
and get all ****y, and I'd certainly take his attitude into account before
escalating the conflict to a potential shoot-out.

On the two occasions I've had to display my sidearm, the actors would have
to bathe, put down their tire-iron, and wipe the drool from their chins
before making a complaint.

In my state, you can't lose your permit simply because you were arrested.

Keywords: "In my state". One size does not fit all, and the scenario I
described was explained to me during my third CCF class by an Internal
Affairs Bureau panel member with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department who investigates OIS's. (Officer Involved Shootings) He
explained that if one perp lies, and another swears to it, you would lose
the gun and permit until you could make a judge agree with your side of said
scenario. He said he had seen it happen.

Bottom line, yes, you can defuse some situations by showing a weapon, or
even intimating one with your hand. But, you also must admit that there
have been situations where doing that has gotten innocent people in trouble.

I monitor Southern Nevada Law Enforcement channels when in Las Vegas, and
have for years. You'd be surprised the number of people who call in others
for making a gun gesture with their hands. Now, the police do not really
look for that individual, but have it on record, and if that person is
stopped, it pops out, and then they usually spend some time getting
searched.

As always, the laws hinder "normal" people.

Steve

On Jan 11, 3:30*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:01 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of
son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the
owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

Unfortunately...? *You wanted to shoot the dogs? *Interesting. *I've
never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching
him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical
until
they actually happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no
information in them. *Everything is theoretical until it happens.
Everything. *It doesn't change the scenario I presented. *Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.
Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.
But when a wacko can get off 30 rounds in maybe 6 seconds,
the party is over pretty fast.
An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.

--Vic

The armed guy in Tucson also said he would've been hesitant to use his gun,
since it might've caused more problems than it solved. Smart guy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A wimp. This is one who stood by and let nine year old Miss Green
die. Your all American hero. Stood there wetting his pants.

But then this runs from top to bottom. USA attacks the undefended.
Afraid of the USSR, North Korea, Iran, China.
Mind, you did pretty well with Greneda.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
benick wrote:


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...

I carry a gun because a cop won't fit in my pocket..

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Guns don't kill people , PEOPLE kill people...

CAUTION...Homeowner is armed...


I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46.

Keep Honking - I'm Reloading

I carry a gun for EXACTLY the same reasons a cop does.

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the bulkiness of a
..45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know, it's a small gun. So
small that I can put it in my pocket. g

Steve

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 3:30 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
wrote:

On Jan 10, 1:01 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of
son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the
owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

Unfortunately...? You wanted to shoot the dogs? Interesting. I've
never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching
him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical
until
they actually happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no
information in them. Everything is theoretical until it happens.
Everything. It doesn't change the scenario I presented. Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops
mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop.
The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the
mayhem was over.
Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they
have training.
But when a wacko can get off 30 rounds in maybe 6 seconds,
the party is over pretty fast.
An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.

--Vic

The armed guy in Tucson also said he would've been hesitant to use his
gun,
since it might've caused more problems than it solved. Smart guy.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A wimp. This is one who stood by and let nine year old Miss Green
die. Your all American hero. Stood there wetting his pants.

But then this runs from top to bottom. USA attacks the undefended.
Afraid of the USSR, North Korea, Iran, China.
Mind, you did pretty well with Greneda.

==============

How long have you lived under a bridge?

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
benick wrote:


Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns...

I carry a gun because a cop won't fit in my pocket..

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them...

Guns don't kill people , PEOPLE kill people...

CAUTION...Homeowner is armed...


I carry a .45 'cause they don't make a .46.

Keep Honking - I'm Reloading

I carry a gun for EXACTLY the same reasons a cop does.

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the bulkiness of
a .45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know, it's a small gun.
So small that I can put it in my pocket. g

Steve



Is the Keltec picky about ammo choices?

On Jan 11, 3:44*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, "Steve B" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Steve B wrote:

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of
respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's
presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying
one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused..
It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would
have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for
the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
official.

It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a
presidential rally or function.

In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit him
entry, but it is not illegal.

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not take a
gun
to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might
create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did
not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that when people carry
guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can
demonstrate a high degree of restraint. I wonder how many people would
have
shot the perp...............

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is the gun(s) wre useless in defense. Which is what any one
with half a brain can deduce.
Oh there was the idiot above who explained how he "nearly shot a dog".
Does that count?

==================

Tell me in great detail why you believe it was improper for me to draw a gun
in order to keep two badly behaved dogs from getting any closer than they
already were to my son, who happened to be doing absolutely nothing which
should cause dogs to go into "corner the target" mode.

There was zero risk to bystanders, since there were none. The setup was
perfect.

I await your humorous explanation. Please try to minimize the spittle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is the irony of it all. We have six people murdered by a loon with
a gun. And your justification for owning one, proving that it's
necessary is you nearly shot a dog (or two). Ever thought the owner
might then have shot you? Dog owners are slightly mad.
I used to work for the local power company and was often confronted
with dogs of various temperaments.(Hundreds of times) I could always
handle the situation. I never felt the need to own a gun. Just to
understand canine behaviour.

On Jan 11, 3:48*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 10:53 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,

"DGDevin" wrote:

Which doesn't exclude fine-tuning the law to reduce such incidents.
After
the Virginian Tech massacre the NRA endorsed the background check system
being changed so someone a judge considers a danger to himself and
others
and orders to undergo psychiatric treatment will be prevented from
purchasing firearms.

Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law. The Psych and Substance Abuse privacy laws
have always been tougher than regular health care privacy.

This Arizona case suggests to me that if someone is rejected by the Army
on psych grounds (if that's what happened) then maybe
that too should put someone on the list.

Same problems. You will note that the information was leaked and the
Army rep said they couldn't comment. Also, FWIW, the Army turned him
down for a dirty urine drop, NOT for psych reason, at least according to
the reports.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is
to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

So you think some stupid law will prevent any loon getting a gun in an
America awash with guns?
You ARE in Lala land.

=============

What makes you think that mentally ill people have enough connections in the
criminal community to obtain a gun illegally?

As always, I look forward to your enlightenment and of course, your reliable
sources.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the UK there is virtually no possibilty.

You can ask around. Friend of a friend who knows someone. Steal one.
Bash a gunowner over the head & take his gun. Once you have one, easy
to get more.
I hear every shopkeeper has a gun under the counter. Or is that just
in CSI?
People keep them on a rack in the back of trucks in America? People
wander about in the woods armed to the teeth.
The possibilities seem endless.

On Jan 11, 3:53*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
bpuharic wrote:

anyone know what 'defend ourselves' means? we have the highest murder
rate in the developed world

how's that defense thingie working out?

Uh, no. We do NOT have the highest "homicide" rate of developed countries..
We're (let me count, mumble-mumble, carry the three...), ah, forty-sixth in
homicide rates. Admittedly, some of the countries ahead of us are less than
fully developed, but the list does include:
* Jamaica
* Belize
* Brazil
* Ecuador
* Mexico
* Costa Rica
* Lithuania
* Turkey
* Agrentina

Which no one could classify as anything but "developed."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicid...

Strange list that. What exactly is "developed"?

On Jan 11, 4:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:

Interesting. *Probability of being hit by lightning interesting, but
interesting. *That's my issue with the whole gun thing. *I don't care
if people own guns any *more than I care if people own fireworks or
jet planes, but people whip out these astoundingly remote
possibilities as justification for owning a gun. *I suppose it's akin
to telling the wife that you _need_ the new Porsche four door sedan
(screaming car, BTW, but kinda ugly) in case you have to rush someone
to the hospital at 180 MPH. *I mean it could happen, right, honey, so
can I get it - for safety's sake....?

Do you feel the same way about fire insurance? A house fire is also an
astonishingly rare event (at least for those who change the batteries in
their smoke detectors).

Point is, one weighs the probability of the occurrence against the magnitude
of the harm, coupled with the cost to prevent or recover from that harm.

Owning a gun is cheap compared to the cost of the (admittedly rare)
situation that you might need it. $400 vs. my life... let me think.

By that thinking you should never ride in a motor car.
Owning a gun won't save you and may precipitate your death. Didn't
help the Giffords woman. Because it wasn't in her hand when she
needed it, As your's won't be.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 3:44 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Jan 10, 11:05 pm, "Steve B" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

om...

Steve B wrote:

It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of
respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's
presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying
one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused.
It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would
have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for
the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped
easily.

Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.

Sorry, you are mistaken.

It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
official.

It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a
presidential rally or function.

In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit
him
entry, but it is not illegal.

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not take a
gun
to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might
create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did
not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that when people
carry
guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can
demonstrate a high degree of restraint. I wonder how many people would
have
shot the perp...............

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The point is the gun(s) wre useless in defense. Which is what any one
with half a brain can deduce.
Oh there was the idiot above who explained how he "nearly shot a dog".
Does that count?

==================

Tell me in great detail why you believe it was improper for me to draw a
gun
in order to keep two badly behaved dogs from getting any closer than they
already were to my son, who happened to be doing absolutely nothing which
should cause dogs to go into "corner the target" mode.

There was zero risk to bystanders, since there were none. The setup was
perfect.

I await your humorous explanation. Please try to minimize the spittle.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is the irony of it all. We have six people murdered by a loon with
a gun. And your justification for owning one, proving that it's
necessary is you nearly shot a dog (or two).
=================

I will do absolutely anything to protect my kid. That includes using my
teeth to rip out another person's trachea, and eating it, hopefully while
the offender's children are watching in horror. It is absolutely normal to
protect one's young using any means available, and anyone who disagrees with
this is seriously maladjusted.

You will attempt to prove me wrong. You will fail.

=================

Ever thought the owner
might then have shot you? Dog owners are slightly mad.

=================
Of course. His attempt would've failed.

=================

I used to work for the local power company and was often confronted
with dogs of various temperaments.(Hundreds of times) I could always
handle the situation. I never felt the need to own a gun. Just to
understand canine behaviour.

==========

I deal in absolutes. I was prepared to deal with those dogs in the exact
same way the police deal with them when they're called to deal with a
vicious dog which has just bitten someone. They make a decision very
quickly. If the animal cleanup officer(s) can't get there quickly enough,
they shoot the dog.

I can say with absolute certainty that if you had been in my situation, you
would NOT have been able to deal with these dogs by understanding their
behavior.

By the way, you pretended not to notice an issue I mentioned earlier. When I
educated the dog owner about what was about to happen, he was able to make
his dogs retreat by yelling a one word command. The police found this very
interesting. Can you explain WHY the police found this interesting? It
caused the police to take the guy's dogs away.

"harry" wrote in message
...

I hear every shopkeeper has a gun under the counter.


You just let all the air out of your so-called "argument". Congratulations.

"harry" wrote in message
...

As your's won't be.

More air leaking....

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:49:02 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote Re O.T. The sick gun culture.:

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the bulkiness of a
.45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know, it's a small gun. So
small that I can put it in my pocket. g

Steve

You guys are going to laugh at me for this, but I'll tell you anyway.
My favorite carry piece is an American Arms PX22 loaded with .22LRs.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/977002075/Guns/Pistols/American-Arms-Pistols/American_Arms_PX_2.htm

It's small, light, has very little power and is not accurate beyond
about 10', but that's what I wanted. I figured that any threat that
was more than 10' away was not enough of a threat to contemplate
pulling on.

I used to carry a .38spl snub nose, but I found it was just too heavy
and uncomfortable for me to carry all day; so I found myself carrying
less and less often. Then I thought that a small .22 that I had with
me was better than a .38spl that I didn't have with me.

Ok, you can laugh now.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...


You guys are going to laugh at me for this, but I'll tell you anyway.
My favorite carry piece is an American Arms PX22 loaded with .22LRs.


Hit man Richard Kuklinski did quite a bit of damage with a .22 pistol, but
he did most of his work up close.


I figured that any threat that was more than 10' away was not enough of a
threat to contemplate pulling on.

That's just plain silly, but you have every right to think that way.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:49:02 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote Re O.T. The sick gun culture.:

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the bulkiness of
a
.45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know, it's a small gun.
So
small that I can put it in my pocket. g

Steve

You guys are going to laugh at me for this, but I'll tell you anyway.
My favorite carry piece is an American Arms PX22 loaded with .22LRs.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/977002075/Guns/Pistols/American-Arms-Pistols/American_Arms_PX_2.htm

It's small, light, has very little power and is not accurate beyond
about 10', but that's what I wanted. I figured that any threat that
was more than 10' away was not enough of a threat to contemplate
pulling on.

I used to carry a .38spl snub nose, but I found it was just too heavy
and uncomfortable for me to carry all day; so I found myself carrying
less and less often. Then I thought that a small .22 that I had with
me was better than a .38spl that I didn't have with me.

Ok, you can laugh now.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:49:02 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote Re O.T. The sick gun culture.:

I like my 17 shot 9mm, for now anyway. I just don't like the bulkiness of
a
.45. I carry a .380 Keltec at times, and yes, I know, it's a small gun.
So
small that I can put it in my pocket. g

Steve

You guys are going to laugh at me for this, but I'll tell you anyway.
My favorite carry piece is an American Arms PX22 loaded with .22LRs.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/977002075/Guns/Pistols/American-Arms-Pistols/American_Arms_PX_2.htm

It's small, light, has very little power and is not accurate beyond
about 10', but that's what I wanted. I figured that any threat that
was more than 10' away was not enough of a threat to contemplate
pulling on.

I used to carry a .38spl snub nose, but I found it was just too heavy
and uncomfortable for me to carry all day; so I found myself carrying
less and less often. Then I thought that a small .22 that I had with
me was better than a .38spl that I didn't have with me.

Ok, you can laugh now.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

They all poke holes if you know how to use them. .22's are particularly
nasty because they have high muzzle velocity, and fragment so much. A
favorite of mob hit men.

Steve

On 1/11/2011 10:32 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 2:42 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

An unarmed OLD lady. Where were all the American heros with their
concealed weapons? Probably wetting their pants. Cowardly scum.

Many carry a weapon for SELF defense, not for the defense of a third party.

If one uses deadly force on behalf of someone else, many consequences can
flow - almost all of them bad.

These consequences, such as shooting someone who was not REALLY an aggressor
or shooting a bystander, are not the problem. The thing that is really wrong
is criminalizing these inadvertent deaths instead of treating them as
justifiable or excusable. It is this threat of going to jail that
disincentivizes a would-be rescuer, not cowardice.

I, personally, run to the sound of gunfire (as would many who've served in
the military). But unless I see a perp actually drinking the victim's blood,
I'm going to be quite circumspect before I start piling up the bodies.

Now that's very selfish. You mean that all the gun owners just stood
by and watched Christina Taylor Green being gunned down? My,
aren'tcha all great heroes? What a society! Sounds worse and worse
to me.

Come on Harry, that's not what happened. The young man who was legally
carrying a pistol ran toward the sound of gunfire and being of sound
mind, did not draw his weapon because the shooter was being tackled by
bystanders and the young man with the legally carried gun was not going
to open fire possibly hitting bystanders. Most people who own guns here
in The States are sane. The young man who ran to the scene actually
joined in and helped hold the shooter on the ground until police arrived
to take over. Cowboys don't waste ammunition. :-)

TDD

On 1/11/2011 8:45 AM, HeyBub wrote:
DD_BobK wrote:

In a suburb of LA, LA County Deputy Sheriffs (10 of them) fired 120
shots at a guy in a Suburban.
He turned out to be unarmed, luckily they only hit him with four shots
but they did manage to hit one of their own.

Total lack of fire discipline...
maybe cops should go back to revolvers, with fewer rounds they might
be more careful or at the very least have fewer total misses.

In my training, we were admonished: "He who puts the most metal in the air
almost always wins."

In my view, cop cars should mount mini-guns. Give the stink-eyes a really
bad day.



You mean like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nug5FZgxuk

TDD

On 1/11/2011 10:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 2:47 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

All part of the American dream. A lala land personified by such tripe
as NCSI aand so forth. Aplace were the good guy always wins (with his
gun), there are no fat or ugly people, there are no poor peopl, no
slums, no unemployent and every thing is beautiful. All complete
********. Dopey credulous people who don't know fact from fiction.
The American gov. wants young boys trained up for their foriegn wars,
waged to enrich the already rich.

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in
the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a
car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.

Hey you need to get on Google Earth. There's poverty in America to
rival anything in the third word. Try Tuskaloosa for a start. Plenty
of places in the rust belt too. And I suspect they were afraid to go
into the really tough areas.

There are no tent cities in the UK. The gov, gives a house anyone
without .
If you have google earth I can send you some links.

Harry, The UK has a population of a bit less than 52 million and The USA
has a population of a bit less than 311 million. We have more poor
citizens as defined by some government agency than the UK has subjects.
Statistically we have more lunatics than you have. Your perverts may be
of superior quality but we have greater numbers. The State of Texas is
2.9 times the size of your whole country. I'm sorry my friend but our
countries just don't survive a side to side comparison. If you were
referring to the West Alabama city of Tuscaloosa, I know it well, I was
born there back in the middle of the last century. If you have a link to
some source of disparaging material on my birthplace, I'd like to see
it. Heck, I might recognize the people and places. :-)

TDD

On 1/11/2011 10:43 AM, harry wrote:
On Jan 11, 3:02 pm, "Pete wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In articleJf6dnYyRaoTrCLbQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdn...@earthlink .com,
wrote:

Which is largely BS because for the most part these records are sealed
by Federal and state law.

Laws which can be changed, that surely is the point. Requiring schools
that expel someone for violent or threatening behavior to have to report
that and a judge would rule on adding that person to the no-guns list also
seems worth exploring--again, they could challenge that later. Over and
over we see these cases where someone offered plenty of signs they were
heading for a serious crackup, and nobody did anything.
Until the laws are changed this is still a BS argument. Doubt this
would work even with your quite reasonable additions. While there are
great indicators that these things are going to happen (in hindsight),
they don't work because they are not either specific or sensitive
enough. For every person who has these things and actually does
something there are literally millions that don't. I don't know that we
are ready as a society to do this.
I have been a Psych RN for about 25 years now. Violence prediction
has pretty much always been an area of intense research. Yet, we still
can't predict which individual will get violent. Heck, we can't even do
that with any precision on the in-patient until where a person is under
24 hour watch by trained professionals.

You're getting at the fact that there is simply nothing that can ever be
done to prevent this kind of one-off nutcase attack. If guns were not
available he would have used knives, if knives had not been available he
would have used firebombs, etc. We simply have to accept the fact this
this kind of event has always happened throughout human history and will
continue to happen, and is the price we pay for not living in a society
where every single person is confined to their own individual cell.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guns are easy to use, hard to eascape from and unecessary.
It takes preparation to make a firebomb and knowledge to make an
effective one.

The Resistance did a pretty good job of utilizing firebombs during WWII. :-)

TDD

On 1/11/2011 8:57 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

So you think some stupid law will prevent any loon getting a gun in an
America awash with guns?
You ARE in Lala land.

Of course not.

The mentally ill have even MORE reasons to be armed in order to protect
themselves from the predations of those who would do them harm.

Very few mental illnesses can trigger a violent outburst. To prevent a
"mentally ill" person from owning or carrying a gun just because they are
depressed, afflicted with Alzheimer's, narcoleptic, anorexic, bulimic, or
have eighty-two body piercings or one hundred and seven cats, is absurd.



I know a few people who think it justified to shoot someone who owned
107 cats. :-)

TDD