"Robert Green" wrote in message ...


Ask any cop if they *really* want to deal with armed citizens operating in
vigilante mode on their beat and the answer will be a resounding "NO WAY!"

Was that the position? Or was it that law-abiding citizens have a right to
be armed for those situations where the police aren't there to defend them
against criminals?

Stir in thousands of armed private citizens and the results are
predictable: more innocent people will be shot.

In which case you should be able to point to credible documentation that
states which go to a shall-issue system for concealed weapon permits see a
resulting spike in gun violence. Can you do that?

That's not to say I favor
elimination of guns, but I really don't want any Tom, Dick or Harry with a
.44 magnum street cannon firing away at suspected criminals in my
neighborhood.

You're imposing a vigilante scenario that doesn't fit the circumstances of
most defensive use of firearms. I know two people who protected themselves
with a firearm in the face of a violent criminal. One didn't have to fire a
shot, the sight of his gun was enough. The other fired a warning shot which
convinced the guy she wasn't the helpless victim he was looking for. And if
you read up on the defensive use of guns you'll find it usually happens in
the shooter's home or place of business when the criminal came to them, so a
depiction of armed citizens roaming the streets looking for trouble is
colorful but unrealistic.

"harry" wrote in message
...


The point you miss is that even knowing you (may) have a gun, the
burglary etc. still happens. So guns do not deter crime. Someone said
earlier it depends more on the age of the local inhabitants.

Manure. Burglars make a point of avoiding buildings with alarm system, or
dogs, or armed residents. Talk to some American cops or criminal defense
lawyers, ask them if crooks don't care about homeowners being armed--it
would be educational for you.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:36:22 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote Re No comments from the GUN_Lovers:



"harry" wrote in message
...


The point you miss is that even knowing you (may) have a gun, the
burglary etc. still happens. So guns do not deter crime. Someone said
earlier it depends more on the age of the local inhabitants.

Manure. Burglars make a point of avoiding buildings with alarm system, or
dogs, or armed residents. Talk to some American cops or criminal defense
lawyers, ask them if crooks don't care about homeowners being armed--it
would be educational for you.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Oren wrote:
The patrolman scratches his head. "Just what are you afraid of,
mister!?"

"Not a ****in' thing!"


...except the state nine-banded armadillo

Last year the Director of the Tennessee Highway Department put out a press
release. In it he observed that the Texas nine-banded armadillo has made it
as far north as Tennessee. He went on to caution drivers to NOT, upon seeing
a 'diller in the road, HONK at the critter.

When startled, the armadillo jumps about four feet straight up!

There's nothing quite like a 16-pound bowling ball coming through your
windshield at sixty miles per hour.

DGDevin wrote:

You're imposing a vigilante scenario that doesn't fit the
circumstances of most defensive use of firearms. I know two people
who protected themselves with a firearm in the face of a violent
criminal. One didn't have to fire a shot, the sight of his gun was
enough. The other fired a warning shot which convinced the guy she
wasn't the helpless victim he was looking for. And if you read up on
the defensive use of guns you'll find it usually happens in the
shooter's home or place of business when the criminal came to them,
so a depiction of armed citizens roaming the streets looking for
trouble is colorful but unrealistic.

Three.

I've displayed my weapon twice in a Home Depot parking lot, both times after
the squint declined to heed my command to "Stop! Come no closer!"

"Hey, man," one said, "I just want to borrow a cigarette!" (and light it
with this here piece of rebar).

I wonder some times, how different they are. Anyhow, I
presume you live in the USA? One of the reasons we have a
relatively low crime rate, so many honest citizens own guns.

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


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in news:isp2cs
:

Here in the USA, the founding fathers were aware that we
are
endowed by our creator with certain rights. I think that
the
right of the individual to self defense is equally
important
as the SS (Schuss Staffel) to protect the Nation's
Leaders.

I'm glad you gotthe pun, although US Secret Service andnazi
SS are totally
different animals grin. As you know I grew up Dutch, and
retain some
animosity towards nazis. In addition, I have a dislike for
personal
ownership of guns (by me, others should do as they see fit,
but be
responsible, please).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Somehow, I believe that.

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


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...


Did you know that there is hospital ward at the Bethesda
Navy Hospital
where new SS and FBI agents are sent to have their sense of
humor
surgically removed? Although some grow back. (g)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"DGDevin" wrote a lot of stuff that makes it clear
he's not a "read through, flag and THEN post" person so I have to downgrade
my previously bullish OER IQ. Even accounting for thread drift, how you
got where you did puzzles me, Mr. Devin. You've allowed yourself to be
Heybubbed and Heybubbed but hard. You'll blush when I walk you through it
at how good he gotcha.

This whole magilla began with Heybub responding in his inimitable way,
suggesting that more guns in the hands of private citizens could somehow
stop a crime like the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Yuma dead in its tracks.
Go back and read it from the start so that you're not contextually on some
other planet, lead on a wild goose chase by U Know Who. What Heybub
actually wrote was pretty ludicrous:

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be
alive today.

Han took immediate exception to that "theory" and so did I because it's not
credible. Could Rep. Giffords have pulled a piece and shot Jared Loughner
after he sneaked up behind her and put a bullet in her brain? Doubtful.

The Secret Service protocols for such incidents are well-known: Physically
overwhelm the shooter, get the gun away from him - not go on a shooting
spree. It's LENF 101 stuff. Remember the Reagan attempt? What happened?
Shooting spree or pile-on? Do you recall as clearly as I do shouts of "Get
the gun, get the gun!" both there and at the shooting of Robert Kennedy?
The assertion of citizen guns successfully countering an assassin's
close-quarters shooting spree, an event measured in seconds, in a situation
like Yuma is absolutely without merit, against precedent and just outright
dumb.

If you read my other posting, I am quite willing to admit that guns can and
do prevent some types of crimes. They've saved my butt at least three
times. But those were mostly foreseeable crimes when someone who looks like
trouble approaches. A madman assassin in a crowd is NOT one of the crimes
that guns in the hands of citizens is likely to prevent. THAT was the case
under discussion. HeyBub, IIRC, knows this because in another thread, he or
an ex-LEO like him reinforced the idea that in a close-up shooting situation
like the Hinckley attempt the rule is "GET THE GUN" and neutralize the
threat.

When someone comes up out of the blue and starts firing rounds from a
high-capacity automatic pistol, human cognition and response time alone mean
that very few people are going to be able respond quickly enough to
seriously impact the shooting. They might even end up providing another
fully loaded weapon to the shooter when he realizes they're not running like
every one else and shoots them reaching for their pistol. The fact is that
the shooter has "the drop" on anyone without a drawn weapon. Until your
weapon is unholstered, the safety taken off and the gun leveled to firing
position, you are at a lethal disadvantage.

Mr. Devin, are you really in favor, in such a situation, of every TD&H
breaking leather at the sound of a gunshot in a crowd? Do you have children
who might be in that crowd?* Do you have ANY IDEA what might really happen
in such a case? As the police converge on the sound of gunshots, WTF are
they supposed to do/say/think when they see not only Jared the insane
shooter, but maybe a dozen people, armed, standing around in a field of dead
and dying bodies? Do you know how much trouble highly trained and
experienced cops and federal agents have when a melee shooting like that
breaks out despite their relentless training for it?

Isn't it likely that the last thing an agent protecting someone would want
is to hear gunshots, see bodies slumping and looking out at a sea of armed
citizens trying to figure out who the bad guys are? Holy Moly this is so
damn obvious. Police departments train and train to prevent it, yet time
and time again in cases like Sean Bell and Amidou Diallo often dozens if not
HUNDREDS of rounds go flying. It's called contagious shooting and it
happens time and time again among highly trained, well-practiced and
experienced shooters. Yet YOU want to let John Doe, who has no LENF
training to go with his shiny new .40 Glock, loose in a deadly situation
that's difficult for pros to handle so that he can "help." It's incredible
no one sees anything wrong with this picture. Own a gun in your home?
Fine. Start shooting at picnics and speeches? No so fine.

Harry happens to be right: The idea that armed, untrained citizens at a
public event would be able to coldly, coolly identify (without any training)
and put down only the assassin is preposterous. The idea that these armed
citizens could stop something like the Giffords shooting with no collateral
damage and without starting a contagious shooting riot boggles the rational
mind. And yet you, Mr. Devin, got Heybubbed into supporting such an
obviously stupid contention. Sheesh.

I used some pretty specific words to describe a pretty specific problem.
What I saw in response time after time from nearly everyone (Han and Harry
clearly "got it") was almost a canned response to *some other issue.* The
topic of this subthread was NOT one of gun ownership although EVERYONE read
it that way and tried desperately to shift the subject. That's fascinating.
It tells me that in contentious topics, no one's really reading, they're
just stating their positions like robots when they come across a "hot button
word" when lightly scanning a posting.

There are some people I'd expect to be fooled like this, but I didn't think
you were one of them, DG.

--
Bobby G.

*asking cops to visualize their family having a picnic on the side of the
road just over the next rise has been shown to be successful in lowering the
number of accidents caused in high speed pursuits. Just putting that image
of their own kids being smashed into hamburger by a car going 90mph
apparently works where all other campaigns have failed. So that's why I
asked if you would want everyone to be armed at a local fair where your own
kids could be in the line of fire when the "shooting riot" starts.

On Jun 9, 8:12*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Han" *wrote in 64...
harry, harry. *Please reply to the correct poster. *And do get sarcasm and
humor recognition implants.

Harry also needs to invest in an Irony Meter. *His own nation conquered a
quarter of the earth by armed force and gave it up only when it no longer
had the strength to hold it, but that escapes his memory when he's on his
daily America-bashing routine. *Harry would crawl through broken glass and
then douse himself with lemon juice if in return he got to bitch and whine
about the U.S., it's a compulsion with him. *And that isn't to say the U.S.
doesn't deserve criticism, but to be meaningful it shouldn't come from
someone whose dislike for America amounts to an obsession.

Aha. Resort to abuse when the facts go against you.
All nations have skeletons in the cupboard (or out).
But the USA is still actively pursuing such policy.

On Jun 9, 8:16*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Han" *wrote in 9...
Fair enough to point out the difficulties with current rules. *But does
that mean everyone needs to arm themselves to the teeth to provide
protectioon against the few who shouldn't have guns in the first place?

Many of my friends and family members own firearms, and not one over many
decades has ever been in trouble with the law. *On the other hand I know two
people (one a direct ancestor) whose possession of a firearm was the
difference between being alive and well at the end of the day and being a
statistic in a report on violent crime. *So from my perspective until you
can arrange for the criminals of the world to be disarmed then asking the
law abiding segment of society to rely purely on the telephone for
protection seems more than a little unreasonable.

Disarming 99% of criminals is quite easy. Have a gun free
environment.
The remaining 1% get their weapons from places like the USA.

On Jun 9, 8:35*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:56:02 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

the Hollywood propaganda and your gun culture.

Jane, you ignorant slut

Hollywood is run by foaming at the mouth liberals -- not the NRA or
any other speculation you make. They WANT the public to see guns as
evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

In my house -- a gun is just natural.

It is part of a US government plot to have a reserve of part trained/
brainwashed boys to send off to various wars where many get killed.
But they are considered by the gov. to be expendable.

On Jun 9, 8:36*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

The point you miss is that even knowing you (may) have a gun, the
burglary etc. still happens. So guns do not deter crime. *Someone said
earlier it depends more on the age of the local inhabitants.

Manure. *Burglars make a point of avoiding buildings with alarm system, or
dogs, or armed residents. *Talk to some American cops or criminal defense
lawyers, ask them if crooks don't care about homeowners being armed--it
would be educational for you.

It just means they come armed with a gun themselves and are prepared
to use it. First if neccesary.

On Jun 9, 8:51*pm, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:36:22 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Talk to some American cops or criminal defense
lawyers, ask them if crooks don't care about homeowners being armed--it
would be educational for you.

Better yet is ask the convicts. They can tell ya they want to avoid an
armed citizen.

The survivors, I mean...

Unless the citzen is dead.

Where do you keep your gun?
Handy, to be ready for the burglar (where your kids can get it)
Or locked up where they can't. And neither can you if you are
burgled.

All ********.

On Jun 10, 2:36*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote a lot of stuff that makes it clear
he's not a "read through, flag and THEN post" person so I have to downgrade
my previously bullish OER IQ. *Even accounting for thread drift, how you
got where you did puzzles me, Mr. Devin. You've allowed yourself to be
Heybubbed and Heybubbed but hard. *You'll blush when I walk you through it
at how good he gotcha.

This whole magilla began with Heybub responding in his inimitable way,
suggesting that more guns in the hands of private citizens could somehow
stop a crime like the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Yuma dead in its tracks.
Go back and read it from the start so that you're not contextually on some
other planet, lead on a wild goose chase by U Know Who. *What Heybub
actually wrote was pretty ludicrous:

Regrettably, if any of the five victims had had a gun, they'd be
alive today.

Han took immediate exception to that "theory" and so did I because it's not
credible. *Could Rep. Giffords have pulled a piece and shot Jared Loughner
after he sneaked up behind her and put a bullet in her brain? *Doubtful..

The Secret Service protocols for such incidents are well-known: *Physically
overwhelm the shooter, get the gun away from him - not go on a shooting
spree. *It's LENF 101 stuff. *Remember the Reagan attempt? *What happened?
Shooting spree or pile-on? *Do you recall as clearly as I do shouts of "Get
the gun, get the gun!" both there and at the shooting of Robert Kennedy?
The assertion of citizen guns successfully countering an assassin's
close-quarters shooting spree, an event measured in seconds, in a situation
like Yuma is absolutely without merit, against precedent and just outright
dumb.

If you read my other posting, I am quite willing to admit that guns can and
do prevent some types of crimes. *They've saved my butt at least three
times. *But those were mostly foreseeable crimes when someone who looks like
trouble approaches. A madman assassin in a crowd is NOT one of the crimes
that guns in the hands of citizens is likely to prevent. *THAT was the case
under discussion. *HeyBub, IIRC, knows this because in another thread, he or
an ex-LEO like him reinforced the idea that in a close-up shooting situation
like the Hinckley attempt the rule is "GET THE GUN" and neutralize the
threat.

When someone comes up out of the blue and starts firing rounds from a
high-capacity automatic pistol, human cognition and response time alone mean
that very few people are going to be able respond quickly enough to
seriously impact the shooting. *They might even end up providing another
fully loaded weapon to the shooter when he realizes they're not running like
every one else and shoots them reaching for their pistol. *The fact is that
the shooter has "the drop" on anyone without a drawn weapon. *Until your
weapon is unholstered, the safety taken off and the gun leveled to firing
position, you are at a lethal disadvantage.

Mr. Devin, are you really in favor, in such a situation, of every TD&H
breaking leather at the sound of a gunshot in a crowd? *Do you have children
who might be in that crowd?* *Do you have ANY IDEA what might really happen
in such a case? *As the police converge on the sound of gunshots, WTF are
they supposed to do/say/think when they see not only Jared the insane
shooter, but maybe a dozen people, armed, standing around in a field of dead
and dying bodies? *Do you know how much trouble highly trained and
experienced cops and federal agents have when a melee shooting like that
breaks out despite their relentless training for it?

Isn't it likely that the last thing an agent protecting someone would want
is to hear gunshots, see bodies slumping and looking out at a sea of armed
citizens trying to figure out who the bad guys are? *Holy Moly this is so
damn obvious. *Police departments train and train to prevent it, yet time
and time again in cases like Sean Bell and Amidou Diallo often dozens if not
HUNDREDS of rounds go flying. *It's called contagious shooting and it
happens time and time again among highly trained, well-practiced and
experienced shooters. *Yet YOU want to let John Doe, who has no LENF
training to go with his shiny new .40 Glock, loose in a deadly situation
that's difficult for pros to handle so that he can "help." *It's incredible
no one sees anything wrong with this picture. *Own a gun in your home?
Fine. *Start shooting at picnics and speeches? *No so fine.

Harry happens to be right: *The idea that armed, untrained citizens at a
public event would be able to coldly, coolly identify (without any training)
and put down only the assassin is preposterous. *The idea that these armed
citizens could stop something like the Giffords shooting with no collateral
damage and without starting a contagious shooting riot boggles the rational
mind. *And yet you, Mr. Devin, got Heybubbed into supporting such an
obviously stupid contention. *Sheesh.

I used some pretty specific words to describe a pretty specific problem.
What I saw in response time after time from nearly everyone (Han and Harry
clearly "got it") was almost a canned response to *some other issue.* * *The
topic of this subthread was NOT one of gun ownership although EVERYONE read
it that way and tried desperately to shift the subject. *That's fascinating.
It tells me that in contentious topics, no one's really reading, they're
just stating their positions like robots when they come across a "hot button
word" when lightly scanning a posting.

There are some people I'd expect to be fooled like this, but I didn't think
you were one of them, DG.

--
Bobby G.

*asking cops to visualize their family having a picnic on the side of the
road just over the next rise has been shown to be successful in lowering the
number of accidents caused in high speed pursuits. *Just putting that image
of their own kids being smashed into hamburger by a car going 90mph
apparently works where all other campaigns have failed. *So that's why I
asked if you would want everyone to be armed at a local fair where your own
kids could be in the line of fire when the "shooting riot" starts.

Heh. Heh. They spout the NRA/Hollywood propaganda. They can't help
it, poor buggers.They have been brainwashed since birth. They need re-
educating. I don't think it can be done at distance though.
I expect they are otherwise nice people.
I have witness real gunfights. (Not in the UK). Not at all liket hese
people imagine.

You notice how these gun topics run on and on?

I think living in America life is so boring the men just drink beer
and the women go shopping in their spare time.
The one's with small dicks get a big gun. They play with them and
talk about cars.

I wonder some times, how different they are. Anyhow, I
presume you live in the USA? One of the reasons we have a
relatively low crime rate, so many honest citizens own guns.

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


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in news:isp2cs
:

Here in the USA, the founding fathers were aware that we
are
endowed by our creator with certain rights. I think that
the
right of the individual to self defense is equally
important
as the SS (Schuss Staffel) to protect the Nation's
Leaders.

I'm glad you gotthe pun, although US Secret Service andnazi
SS are totally
different animals grin. As you know I grew up Dutch, and
retain some
You grew up a Mormon racist who hates Mexican Catholics,
you love to shoot a dozen chicanos don't you you Dutch alien
dickhead.Who brought to this country VanKeeler?
animosity towards nazis. In addition, I have a dislike for
personal
ownership of guns (by me, others should do as they see fit,
but be
responsible, please).

DGDevin wrote:

Harry also needs to invest in an Irony Meter. His own nation
conquered a quarter of the earth by armed force and gave it up only
when it no longer had the strength to hold it, but that escapes his
memory when he's on his daily America-bashing routine.

There was a time, not so very long ago, when every time Big Ben tolled the
hour, somewhere in the world the British Ensign was being raised at dawn.

Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
Standards, a copy of Microsoft Windows is booting up somewhere in the world
(often for the fourth time that day).

harry wrote:

Disarming 99% of criminals is quite easy. Have a gun free
environment.
The remaining 1% get their weapons from places like the USA.

There will be a hearing today (Friday) in the Congress regarding the ATF's
"Fast and Furious" program. The program allowed (literally) thousands of
guns to be purchased in the US for delivery to drug gangs in Mexico.

Let's look at the facts:

* Gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona recorded windfall profits
thanks to the ATF,
* Domestic gun manufacturers and importers, too, made extra profits,
* Our nation's balance-of-payments improved,
* The guns were used, mainly, by members of one Mexican drug gang to kill
members of other Mexican drug gangs.

Some say: "Where's the bad?"

harry wrote:

It is part of a US government plot to have a reserve of part trained/
brainwashed boys to send off to various wars where many get killed.
But they are considered by the gov. to be expendable.

Nobody is "sent." They all volunteered for the opportunity to kill people
and blow things up.

If that's their "thing," it's better they practice their art far away than
in downtown Bakersfield.

Although on second thought...

harry wrote:

Where do you keep your gun?
Handy, to be ready for the burglar (where your kids can get it)
Or locked up where they can't. And neither can you if you are
burgled.


Huh?

My kids started their firearms training at about age six. By the time they
were eight, they were just as capable of shooting a burglar as I.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:isrqhd
:

I wonder some times, how different they are. Anyhow, I
presume you live in the USA? One of the reasons we have a
relatively low crime rate, so many honest citizens own guns.

I live in North Jersey now. I believe that crime (or at least the fear of
violent crime) is worse in the US than in Europe.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

Disarming 99% of criminals is quite easy. Have a gun free
environment.
The remaining 1% get their weapons from places like the USA.

There will be a hearing today (Friday) in the Congress regarding the ATF's
"Fast and Furious" program. The program allowed (literally) thousands of
guns to be purchased in the US for delivery to drug gangs in Mexico.

Let's look at the facts:

* Gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona recorded windfall profits
thanks to the ATF,
* Domestic gun manufacturers and importers, too, made extra profits,
* Our nation's balance-of-payments improved,
* The guns were used, mainly, by members of one Mexican drug gang to kill
members of other Mexican drug gangs.

Some say: "Where's the bad?"

Here's the bad - it's quite obvious to anyone who knows what's happening
that many, many more people than cartel members are being killed by ATF
supplied weapons. Heads are gonna roll on this:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-b...unner-program/

"Documents show that ATF-walked guns began turning up at many violent
crime scenes in Mexico from the start. Two of them - AK-47 variant
semi-automatic assault rifles - were found at the murder scene of Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.."

Something tells me his surviving relatives would be very quick to tell you
where the bad is . . . You can also count on this not going away the way it
might if an ATF agent had been killed. Border Patrol isn't going to forget
what happened and are pushing hard to make the gun-running ATF (WTF?!)
accountable. They f'\/cked up, big time, just like they did when they
assaulted the Branch Davidians. Running guns? Shooting kids in a totally
unnecessary confrontation (low-level ATF'er testified they could have taken
him easily on any one of his trips into town. You gotta wonder who's
running the asylum, the inmates or the doctors?

The many other innocent victims of the drug wars that ATF helped fuel might
have something to say about where the "bad" is but they can't because
they're dead:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lapl...res-40000.html

. . . several news outlets in Mexico, as well as the peace movement of
poet Javier Sicilia, have begun citing a figure of 40,000 dead since last
month . . . (The Times lately has cited an estimate of at least 38,000,
based on the official figures plus an approximation for the first months of
2011 derived from mainstream Mexican media tallies.) Many drug-related
deaths are simply not counted, and scores of people remain missing or
disappeared. As The Times has reported, the missing constitute a confounding
mystery that casts doubt on virtually any figure of deaths related to the
drug war . . . The death toll has always included a presumed majority of
suspected cartel members, plus smaller numbers of military personnel,
federal and local police officers, politicians, journalists, lawyers,
human-rights activists, students, migrants from Central and South America
and a handful of U.S. government employees, including a consular official
killed in Ciudad Juarez and a customs agent gunned down in San Luis Potosi.
Overall, 111 U.S. citizens were killed in Mexico . . . In addition, numerous
innocent bystanders and even infants have fallen victim to the violence.

http://latindispatch.com/2010/09/27/...ter-to-report/

the 30-plus journalists killed and disappeared since the beginning of the
president's term in 2006 are not collateral damage as some have suggested.
Rather, the media is a deliberate target in a campaign by criminal groups to
dictate what can and cannot be reported in the areas they control."

Four Pinocchios for HeyBub whose nose had grown so large it's now in a
different time zone than his head.

(----: (----: (----: (----:

--
Bobby G.

Han wrote:

....


I live in North Jersey now. I believe that crime (or at least the fear of
violent crime) is worse in the US than in Europe.


In NJ or the metro NE US in general I can certainly understand how one
would get that feeling. It's not prevalent throughout the US at all,
however.

In my work in Europe (most particularly England) I was in some areas
that were at least as scary about muggings, etc., after dark as anywhere
I've been in the US and saw more occurrences of same in those relatively
short time periods than I've seen in my lifetime in US in total.

IOW, imo there's no shortage of bad guys anywhere there are sizable
numbers of folks anywhere in the world, unfortunately.

--

"harry" wrote in message
...

Disarming 99% of criminals is quite easy.


Disarming 99% of sheep is quite easy. Criminals--not so much.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-Dunblane.html

Gun crimes soaring despite ban brought in following Dunblane

By David Bamber, Home Affairs Correspondent

12:01AM BST 15 Jul 2001


THE controversial ban on the ownership of handguns which was introduced
after the Dunblane massacre has failed to halt an increasing number of
crimes involving firearms.

An independent report, Illegal Firearms in the UK, to be published by the
Centre for Defence Studies at King's College in London tomorrow, says that
handguns were used in 3,685 offences last year compared with 2,648 in 1997,
an increase of 40 per cent.

The figures will renew the debate about the effectiveness of the gun ban,
introduced by the last Conservative government and then extended to cover
all pistols by Labour after winning the 1997 general election.

Legislation banning larger-calibre pistols was proposed by the previous
Conservative government in response to the murder of 16 pupils and their
teacher by Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane primary school in March 1996.

But Labour broadened the scope of the Act to cover smaller handguns as well,
despite opposition from the sporting community. The law is now so
restrictive that British Olympic shooting competitors go abroad to practise
because their weapons are illegal in this country.

The new report, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for
Shooting, was compiled by John Bryan, the former head of the firearms
intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard.

Mr Bryan said that his report cast doubt on the wisdom of the ban. "The
increase in the use of handguns by criminals since the implementation of the
1997 Act clearly raises important questions for policy-makers considering
further controls on legally-held firearms."

David Bredin, the director of the Campaign for Shooting, said: "It is
crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to
crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy-makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities
with ever-tighter laws. The research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal
guns which are the real threat to public safety."

The number of crimes involving handguns has increased, mostly due to a flood
of illegally imported weapons and the use of those already in circulation
before 1997.

The report also shows a dramatic rise in firearms incidents in general, from
4,904 recorded incidents in 1997 to 6,843 last year. It reveals an increase
in crimes using shotguns, up from 580 in 1997 to 693 last year.

Offences involving air weapons show an even more startling rise, from 7,506
in 1997 to 10,103 last year. Mr Bryan compiled the statistics from Home
Office figures and information obtained by analysing individual forces'
crime totals.

A firearms amnesty at the time of the ban's introduction resulted in 160,000
handguns being surrendered to the police at a cost of £90 million to the
taxpayer in compensation.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The Government did not believe that banning
handguns by itself would eradicate gun crime. We recognise there is a
continuing problem with the use of guns by criminals and that it has
increased over recent years.

"We are taking further measures against criminals who use guns and we
already have schemes in the pipeline to curtail illegal gun use. These
include a national register of legal guns, an intensified effort against
illegally smuggled weapons and a determination to punish criminals who use
guns."

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


* The guns were used, mainly, by members of one Mexican drug gang to kill
members of other Mexican drug gangs.

Some say: "Where's the bad?"

Bit of a problem with that claim. Cops (over 1,000), mayors (10 murdered
just last year) not to mention people just riding the wrong bus or shopping
at the wrong store or standing in the wrong street and so on--it would
appear that thousands of people who aren't part of drug gangs are being
killed by drug gangs in Mexico.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Where do you keep your gun?
Handy, to be ready for the burglar (where your kids can get it)
Or locked up where they can't. And neither can you if you are
burgled.

All ********.


The depth of your ignorance is exceeded only by the virulence of your
bigotry.

With not much practice these can be opened in less time than it would take
to read this sentence.

http://www.gunvault.com/

"harry" wrote in message
...


Manure. Burglars make a point of avoiding buildings with alarm system,
or
dogs, or armed residents. Talk to some American cops or criminal defense
lawyers, ask them if crooks don't care about homeowners being armed--it
would be educational for you.

It just means they come armed with a gun themselves and are prepared
to use it. First if neccesary.

You are of course wrong. Most criminals are looking for easy targets, they
will happily avoid trouble if possible because what they want is your
property, not a gunfight. Again--talk to American cops or defense lawyers
about this (I know plenty of both)--they'll tell you your image of
heavily-armed burglars roaming the streets looking for confrontation is pure
nonsense. But then nonsense is your specialty, isn't it.

"Robert Green" wrote in message ...


And yet you, Mr. Devin, got Heybubbed into supporting such an
obviously stupid contention. Sheesh.

Huh? Can you quote me saying one word about the Giffords shooting? No?
Then how do I qualify as supporting a position about which I've said
nothing?

I mentioned a couple of incidents I am personally familiar with, that was
the sort of scenario I was thinking of. If Heybub (whose trollish
tendencies are well known) was off on some other rant, well in that case
you're right, I stepped into a conversation without reading every post in
the thread--mea culpa for that.

There are some people I'd expect to be fooled like this, but I didn't
think
you were one of them, DG.

I'll go out to the garage and clamp my hand in a vice for five minutes.

So that's why I
asked if you would want everyone to be armed at a local fair where your
own
kids could be in the line of fire when the "shooting riot" starts.

Where do I go to read about these "shooting riots" you refer to? Most U.S.
states now have fairly liberal concealed-carry laws, with many hundreds of
thousands of CCW permits being issued. So the press coverage of these
furious gunfights with ignorant and unskilled citizens flinging rounds in
all directions must be extensive if your theory is correct.

If it were up to me a CCW permit would only be issued on successful
completion of a reasonable course in basic gun law, safe handling and
marksmanship. However it is worth noting that even where such requirements
do not exist there does not seem to have been a flood of mass panic-shooting
incidents such as you appear to fear.

"harry" wrote in message
...


Heh. Heh. They spout the NRA/Hollywood propaganda. They can't help
it, poor buggers.They have been brainwashed since birth. They need re-
educating. I don't think it can be done at distance though.

On the contrary, there was a time when I had largely bought-into the
anti-gun rhetoric that comes from some quarters and I too figured that
harsher gun laws in America would no doubt lead to less violence. Then I
grew up.

As I've said before, of my many friends and family members who own firearms,
not one of them has ever been in trouble with the law over decades of owning
guns. And yet two of them have used firearms defensively (neither having to
actually put a bullet in someone). Actually if you include my sister-in-law
who is a police officer who has drawn her weapon on the job to subdue
suspects that would make three.

So I have ask myself who I should believe--all my law-abiding friends and
relations, or a delusional Ameriphobe whose rants in a.h.r. have been shown
to be hogwash on many occasions?

I have witness real gunfights. (Not in the UK). Not at all liket hese
people imagine.

LOL, I suspect a production of Harry's rich fantasy life is just around the
corner.

I think living in America life is so boring the men just drink beer
and the women go shopping in their spare time.
The one's with small dicks get a big gun. They play with them and
talk about cars.

So what causes delusional ******s in the UK to spend time online ****ing and
whining about the U.S.? Tired of moving that lawn gnome around your
palatial garden?

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

Disarming 99% of criminals is quite easy. Have a gun free
environment.
The remaining 1% get their weapons from places like the USA.

There will be a hearing today (Friday) in the Congress regarding the
ATF's "Fast and Furious" program. The program allowed (literally)
thousands of guns to be purchased in the US for delivery to drug
gangs in Mexico.

Let's look at the facts:

* Gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona recorded windfall
profits thanks to the ATF,
* Domestic gun manufacturers and importers, too, made extra profits,
* Our nation's balance-of-payments improved,
* The guns were used, mainly, by members of one Mexican drug gang to
kill members of other Mexican drug gangs.

Some say: "Where's the bad?"

Here's the bad - it's quite obvious to anyone who knows what's
happening that many, many more people than cartel members are being
killed by ATF supplied weapons. Heads are gonna roll on this:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-b...unner-program/


Oh, I agree that anything bringing grief to the ATF is a Good Thing (TM).
Especially when they brought it upon themselves.

And I agree that it's not all black and white, that some innocent persons
get caught in the crossfire. Still, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to
condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up...

"Robert Green" wrote in message ...


The police response was disorganized and poorly coordinated and
when the hostage made her brave move to push the guy away, he died in a
hail
of bullets from all directions - and several of the cops and bystanders
were
hit because the cops did what they often do - bunched up and got in each
other's line of fire. I know one ex-cop who makes his living with his
wife
traveling "the circuit" training cops to be aware of what's behind their
target in a shooting situation.

A company I once worked for was involved in training law enforcement
officers in real-world shooting situations using paintball guns so there was
no question about what happened. The amazing thing was how bad most of the
cops were, failing to use solid cover being one frequent error.
Interestingly enough by the end of the day the local guys had learned a lot
and expressed gratitude, but the feds involved acted like they'd been
insulted by having their shortcomings pointed out.

To think of a dozen or so armed private citizens reacting in a way that
would have saved any lives in Yuma is very debatable.

I agree, but the fact that there were armed citizens present and it didn't
turn into a "shooting riot" is surely worth noting.

And so it goes like a chain reaction.
It happens ALL THE TIME with cops - they shoot plainclothesmen,
detectives,
G-men and even uniformed cops when the **** hits the fan.

Indeed, it happens in combat with the military too.

Dropping the matches and backing up was a non-violent way of saying "I'm
onto you." My right hand in my pocket also said "I don't know what you're
got behing your back but YOU don't know what I have in my pocket."

Good story, and you absolutely did the right thing. There's a fellow named
Ayoob who serves as a consultant in trials of people involved in shooting
incidents where they get into legal hot water because they did something
legally foolish in the course of a legitimate use of a firearm in
self-defense. As Ayoob points out there are things you should do--like
backing away while loudly telling a would-be assailant to come no closer
which makes it clear in the minds of bystanders who the aggressor is. It
can make the difference between finding yourself in court as a witness or a
defendant.

On 6/10/2011 7:33 AM, HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:

Where do you keep your gun?
Handy, to be ready for the burglar (where your kids can get it)
Or locked up where they can't. And neither can you if you are
burgled.


Huh?

My kids started their firearms training at about age six. By the time they
were eight, they were just as capable of shooting a burglar as I.



My family resembled that remark. Guns were never 'forbidden fruit', they
were just there. We were all shooting from the time we could hold a
weapon without wobbling. None of us ever shot each other or anything.

--
aem sends...

On 6/10/2011 4:09 PM, Oren wrote:
(snip)
I voted against hiring a newbie. He was not able to tell me if I
ordered him to shoot a man, would he do it, based on my orders.

The guy was hired ( 3-1 vote) and I kept him off my shift roster.

Not a fair test Oren- nobody knows until and unless they are in that
situation, if they could pull the trigger. Training probably helps, but
even the Army says trained but inexperienced troops have a large
percentage that don't actually fire their weapon, they just hunker down.

I hope I never have any reason to find out if I could do it or not.
Either way, I probably would not be happy with myself.

--
aem sends...

I'll admit, I've never been to Europe. From what I've heard
of NJ, it is a gun law zone, and as such has higher crime.
Try living in Arizona, or Wyoming to see what freedom is
like.

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


"Han" wrote in message
...

I live in North Jersey now. I believe that crime (or at
least the fear of
violent crime) is worse in the US than in Europe.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 6/10/2011 6:51 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:14:58 -0400,
wrote:

On 6/10/2011 4:09 PM, Oren wrote:
(snip)
I voted against hiring a newbie. He was not able to tell me if I
ordered him to shoot a man, would he do it, based on my orders.

The guy was hired ( 3-1 vote) and I kept him off my shift roster.

Not a fair test Oren- nobody knows until and unless they are in that
situation, if they could pull the trigger. Training probably helps, but
even the Army says trained but inexperienced troops have a large
percentage that don't actually fire their weapon, they just hunker down.

I hope I never have any reason to find out if I could do it or not.
Either way, I probably would not be happy with myself.

I think it was fair. My life and many others depended upon making a
decision. I was probing if the applicant could actually make a
spontaneous decision -- saving lives of the innocent.

If the guy applied for the job I need to know if he can act in a
difficult situation.

A guy left a suicide note at home, planning to use a government gun to
harm himself.

Who hired that guy? Difficult questions need to asked in some
circumstances.

I have great respect for people that say: This job is not for me.

My point being- even if the applicant replies 'Yes', either thoughtfully
or resoundingly, you (and he) wouldn't really know for sure, until such
time as the situation arose. Even people who HAVE been in firefights
before sometimes blue-screen when they are in a kill-or-be-killed situation.

--
aem sends...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


And I agree that it's not all black and white, that some innocent persons
get caught in the crossfire. Still, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to
condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up...

Single slip-up? This is the agency that brought us Waco, remember? And
does the name Ruby Ridge ring a bell? This is the agency which has had
agents prosecuted for stealing guns, selling drugs, stealing cash from
suspects, and murder--not surprising perhaps considering one of the agency's
directors was investigated for a wide range of abuses. This is the gun
control agency which is missing scores of firearms issued to its own agents,
and which was exposed before Congress for conning citizens into committing
technical violations of the law to pump up its prosecution stats rather than
going after hardened criminals. If ever there was a federal agency
desperately searching for a reason to exist, it's the BATF.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:isu5bi
:

I'll admit, I've never been to Europe. From what I've heard
of NJ, it is a gun law zone, and as such has higher crime.
Try living in Arizona, or Wyoming to see what freedom is
like.

I'm not saying there is no crime here, but I'm just fine here,thank you:
http://radburn.org

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


And I agree that it's not all black and white, that some innocent
persons get caught in the crossfire. Still, I, uh, don't think it's
quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up...

Single slip-up? This is the agency that brought us Waco, remember? And
does the name Ruby Ridge ring a bell? This is the agency which
has had agents prosecuted for stealing guns, selling drugs, stealing
cash from suspects, and murder--not surprising perhaps considering
one of the agency's directors was investigated for a wide range of
abuses. This is the gun control agency which is missing scores of
firearms issued to its own agents, and which was exposed before
Congress for conning citizens into committing technical violations of
the law to pump up its prosecution stats rather than going after
hardened criminals. If ever there was a federal agency desperately
searching for a reason to exist, it's the BATF.

No, no. I meant slip-up in the sense that a few hundred innocent people got
killed, facilitated by the ATF program.

I don't think the ATF was involved in Ruby Ridge.

aemeijers wrote:
On 6/10/2011 4:09 PM, Oren wrote:
(snip)
I voted against hiring a newbie. He was not able to tell me if I
ordered him to shoot a man, would he do it, based on my orders.

The guy was hired ( 3-1 vote) and I kept him off my shift roster.

Not a fair test Oren- nobody knows until and unless they are in that
situation, if they could pull the trigger. Training probably helps,
but even the Army says trained but inexperienced troops have a large
percentage that don't actually fire their weapon, they just hunker
down.

Not any more. When the shooting starts all the infantry types run to the
sound of the guns and shoot, shoot, shoot. There may be some REMFs that
hunker down, the the infantry guys (Army and Marine), well, that's what they
joined up to do!

DGDevin wrote:

Where do I go to read about these "shooting riots" you refer to? Most U.S.
states now have fairly liberal concealed-carry laws, with
many hundreds of thousands of CCW permits being issued. So the press
coverage of these furious gunfights with ignorant and unskilled
citizens flinging rounds in all directions must be extensive if your
theory is correct.

Specifically, 48 states permit concealed carry (Illinois, Wisconsin, and
D.C. are the outliers). Of these, 36 are "shall issue" (or have no permit
requirement). "Shall issue" means that if the applicant meets the statutory
requirements (able to stand up, see lightning, and hear thunder), the
controlling body shall (must) issue the permit. Ten states have some form of
discretionary permitting system. New York and California are the two most
prominent, though in the latter regard California, just this week, turned
into a shall-issue state when the sheriff of Sacramento County announced
that no one would be denied a permit if they met the statutory regulations.


If it were up to me a CCW permit would only be issued on successful
completion of a reasonable course in basic gun law, safe handling and
marksmanship. However it is worth noting that even where such
requirements do not exist there does not seem to have been a flood of
mass panic-shooting incidents such as you appear to fear.

Square your firearm requirements with the constitutional provisions on
voting. A citizenship test? Payment of a fee?

On 6/10/2011 9:30 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

Where do I go to read about these "shooting riots" you refer to? Most U.S.
states now have fairly liberal concealed-carry laws, with
many hundreds of thousands of CCW permits being issued. So the press
coverage of these furious gunfights with ignorant and unskilled
citizens flinging rounds in all directions must be extensive if your
theory is correct.

Specifically, 48 states permit concealed carry (Illinois, Wisconsin, and
D.C. are the outliers). Of these, 36 are "shall issue" (or have no permit
requirement). "Shall issue" means that if the applicant meets the statutory
requirements (able to stand up, see lightning, and hear thunder), the
controlling body shall (must) issue the permit. Ten states have some form of
discretionary permitting system. New York and California are the two most
prominent, though in the latter regard California, just this week, turned
into a shall-issue state when the sheriff of Sacramento County announced
that no one would be denied a permit if they met the statutory regulations.


If it were up to me a CCW permit would only be issued on successful
completion of a reasonable course in basic gun law, safe handling and
marksmanship. However it is worth noting that even where such
requirements do not exist there does not seem to have been a flood of
mass panic-shooting incidents such as you appear to fear.

Square your firearm requirements with the constitutional provisions on
voting. A citizenship test? Payment of a fee?


Bad analogy. Voting can't kill innocent bystanders. Driver's licenses
would be a better comparison. Yes, I know there is not constitutional
right to drive, etc. But 200+ years of case law have held that
constitutional rights are subject to to reasonable limitations in the
exercise thereof- no yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc. I have no
heartburn with a basic safety class as a prerequisite for getting a
carry permit. I'd rather they were taught by disinterested 3rd parties
instead of gun dealers and shooting clubs that may as well be NRA branch
offices, but what can you do? That is where the experts and shooting
ranges are.

--
aem sends...