Kirk Gordon wrote Ed Huntress wrote:

The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To
suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime
rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on
and walk around "the streets," anyway.

The correlation between "open (visible) carry and actual numbers of
those *legally* carrying, is not statistically signifcant. Whether
this should be true or not, is open to genuine disagreement. See my
comments earlier, about stupid people and their fears. If we start
allowing unjustifed "fears" (or, if you will, dislikes based on any
irrational basis) we will lose all freedoms. I do not feel threatened,
because someone is Gay/Lesbian, carries a gun (or any other personal
weapon) openly, the existence of Alcoholic beverages for sale in
public, the existence of Porn, etc., yet some are. So "threatened"
that they would remove the freedom of these to even exist.

Personally, having been injured in *two* traffic accidents, I would
be more afraid of idiots in multi thousand pound vehicles, than guns.
I've heard that less than 2% legally carry guns in Indiana, which
means, based on personal experience :-), Cars are infinitely more
dangerous. Totaling up, "gun injuries" and "Auto injuries," would
probably be similar, but closer to real numbers. Yet, carrying a "gun"
is more terrifying, than walking across a street (even with the
light). AS to "peer pressure," take a look at drunk driving arrests.
:-(

Fewer DUIs, but those who do, are getting caught with higher Blood
Alcohol Contents. In fact, there is more legislative effort put into
regulating guns, than is spent on the more statistically lethal DUI.
Someone please explain that to me.

I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However...

I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they
should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be
allowed to conceal them. If we can all tell that someone is armed, just
by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully
informed decisions about our own behavior.

I fully agree. It would weed out the truly stupid, rapidly. Yes, it
would temporarily cause the death of those not involved, but that
happens already with Drunk Drivers. You cannot legislate personal
responibility, nor prevent stupidity. I would have a good knee, and no
back injury, if it were possible.

It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more of a problem, and
should be more of a concern than, say, a rifle or shotgun clearly
visible in the back window of a pickup truck. I never think twice about
that, when I happen to see it. The gun-owner is probably a farmer, or a
rancher, or someone else who benefits from being able to prang a
groundhog or a coyote when the need arises. Same with the handguns worn
by cops. I know they're there. I know there's a reason for them that
has nothing to do with threatening me. And I don't mind a bit.

How do you feel about not knowing the mental acuity of the drivers
on the road with you? They could be drunk, on drugs, half asleep, not
paying attention, or just plain stupid. A bullet can only kill/injure
one person. A car can do it to a dozen or more. Now, would at some
point unthinking acceptance of risks become stupid behavior? Of course
it would. The half blind idiot driving a car, is not concerned by the
danger he/she represents. Neither will the unthinking idiot with a
gun.

We cannot prevent such people from being a menace to others. We can
seek to make it possible to rectify the mistakes made. In the case of
cars, we have lawsuits available. If "open carry," is available, we
can exercise immediate physical means to stop the problem. Up to and
including shooting the person ourselves.

Someone who wants to protect himself could probably, in most cases
be better protected by announcing himself as armed, rather than by
concealing his gun and looking like unarmed prey to a prospective
criminal. Surprising the criminal might be fun or satisfying for
someone who doesn't get killed while trying it; but it can't possibly be
the best way to be safe.

I agree. Like the car example, if I see possible problems, I can
take steps to minimize them.

When someone conceals a weapon, then it makes perfect sense for
others to question the reason for the concealment, and the real purpose
for which the weapon is intended.

This is true *only* in a rational world. However, we do not live in
a rational world. If you have sex with someone, absent witnesses (or
video) to the contrary, can you _prove_ you did not commit rape? Which
brings us back to the existence of people with irrational fears.
Should they have a right to remove the freedoms of others, simply
because they are afraid? Look at the warning labels on things, today.
They exist, because people did brainless things, and now the
"intelligent" people are paying for it. Perfect safety is *not*
attainable. No matter how hard someone may try to bring it about.
OTOH, neither should we accept casual endangerment.

If I have to make the choice, I'd
rather see "Open Carry Mandatory" laws, with VERY stiff penalties for
concealment, than wasted attempts to outlaw guns that we don't even
know are there.

And, if guns were as visible as, say, cigarrettes, then I suspect
we'd do a much better job of policing ourselves through the time honored
practice of "social pressure".

As I said, a better example is Drunk Driving. Any rational reasons
for restricting cigarrettes have been lost in the political
extremisms. Except in a few cases. there is no _immediate_ danger.
OTOH, cars are dangerous even under legal circumstances. I will
concede that there would be pressure to "act more adult." I.e., not
allow action to be taken that is excessive to the provocation.

My sister-in-law's house is an absolute
no smoking zone. It's her house, and she has a right to make the rules,
and everybody in the family knows it. And, SHE'LL know immediately if I
decide to unwrap a cheap cigar and light up in her living room. If I
did the same kind of thing, and decided that my home was a gun-free
place, then anyone who wanted to visit, or some young man who came to
pick up my stepdaughter for a date, or the delivery people bringing my
new sofa, would have to make the same kinds of choices that smokers do,
since their weapons would be as easy to detect as a plume of smoke.
Better yet, I could do this WITHOUT having to limit the rights of any
person to be as armed as he/she cares to be. I'd only be exercising my
own right to detrimine what goes on in my own house.

The results of peer pressure and widespread social disapproval of
smoking have been pretty astonishing, and have developed pretty quickly,
as large scale social trends go.

You ignore the laws making smoking illegal in many places. Including
your own yard. IIRC, an East Coast court ruled that a *neighbor* could
claim "harm" from "drifting tobacco smoke." Even restaurants are no
longer being given the option of a smoking/no smoking section (with
appropriate air flow handling). So, please do not use it as an example
of "peer pressure." BTW, I am _allergic_ to cigarrette smoke, but with
proper ventilation, have no problem with a smoking section. So, I am
just a unhappy as smokers are, with the current trends.

I wonder if the public wearing of
visible guns, even if completely legal, couldn't be moderated in the
same way, and for very similar reasons.

KG

Unfortunately not, for the reasons cited above. Irrational fear
mongers, and those who pander to them will always exist. Too many want
to be "free from all possible harm." Regardless of how they define
what will "harm" them.

WD

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:18:41 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Thirsty Viking

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.

See Churl, see Churl's stupid statement, see Churls normal stupidity.

Chuckle..as Bugs said.."what a maroon"

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:28:51 GMT, (Richard A.
Lewis) wrote:


You conveniently neglected to mention that part where I posted the
numbers that proved you and Ed to be idiots by proving Gunner's
numbers. Also the part where, after being proven to be lying idiots
by the numbers that you couldn't refute, you pathetically changed the
topic a few times and went off arguing semantics.


As I recently said: sometimes gun owners are their own worst
enemy.

Thanks for proving me right.

Since I have a new computer, I have to build a new killfile.
Congrats, you're the first one plonked.

And your mom thought you'd never amount to anything.

-Carl

So the original statement was a crock of baloney, and remains so.

Ed Huntress

IIRC, the original statement was just that, I don't recall a conclusion being
included in it. Except that you and several others drew conclusions and then
tried to make the case that they were unwarranted... from the original
statement. I'd say this discussion is, at best, a draw. I'm sure glad I
raise & train mules. It prepares me well for many of the exchanges in this
forum g
Greg Sefton

Carl Byrns wrote:

As I recently said: sometimes gun owners are their own worst
enemy.

So you assume I'm a gun owner because you lost the argument to me?

Figures.

Pathetic idiot.

ral

"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message
news
Carl Byrns wrote:

Since you don't seem to know how the whole thread started, here's a
brief recap:

Ed Huntress took Gunner to task concerning the numbers Gunner had
posted in his sig file. I jumped in with an observation of mine own
that when Gunner posts something that he can't prove or defend, he
usually makes no reply.
To his credit, Gunner did try to defend his sig files numbers.

You conveniently neglected to mention that part where I posted the
numbers that proved you and Ed to be idiots by proving Gunner's
numbers.

Richard, you lazy phony. What you "proved" is that you can't tell 4/5 from
3/4; that your idea of "research" is to cut and paste from the NRA's
website; that you have a delicately refined definition of "permit," but that
you don't understand the word "anyone" at all.

Gunner didn't supply any numbers. He quoted someone else's numbers --
someone who no one seems to know, who may not even exist, and whose numbers
you couldn't substantiate in the end.

Also the part where, after being proven to be lying idiots
by the numbers that you couldn't refute, you pathetically changed the
topic a few times and went off arguing semantics.

"Arguing semantics"? Richard, you don't understand the meaning of "anyone"?
Yet you sharpened your semantic pencil over "permit" without any qualms at
all.

You're a phony, Richard, who claims to have researched the issue but who
didn't even know that the "strict" regulations in Utah amounted to emptying
one extra chamber in a revolver. You defend the claim that "anyone" can walk
down a street in Kansas without having noticed that there's hardly a city or
a decent-sized town in that state that doesn't require either a permit to
purchase or that disallows open carry. Where are your "streets" that you're
going to walk down with your gun strapped on, Richard? In a cow pasture?

When you want to get serious and really research something, come on back.
Meantime, you'd spend your time better by practicing your quick draw. Slap
that leather, Richard. Spank it, boy. You have all those murders to
prevent...

And Merry Christmas. g

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Richard, you lazy phony. What you "proved" is that you can't tell 4/5 from
3/4; that your idea of "research" is to cut and paste from the NRA's
website; that you have a delicately refined definition of "permit," but that
you don't understand the word "anyone" at all.

Sure thing, idiot.

The numbers I quoted that you claimed were lies etc were from 2000 and
were just over 76% is I recall correctly. If you have more recent
numbers that disprove them, we'd all like to see them.

Problem with you is that you made some sort of claim to info
disproving my post early on but it never materialized....just like the
rest of your argument. You couldn't argue the cites so you fell back
on pussy semantics.

Gunner didn't supply any numbers. He quoted someone else's numbers --
someone who no one seems to know, who may not even exist, and whose numbers
you couldn't substantiate in the end.

I couldn't, idiot? Want me to repost that post you never redressed?

The thread's still open....feel free to post that disproof that you
many times claimed to have but never showed. My numbers and cites are
all right there for you to work with.

Should I hold my breath?

ral

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
So the original statement was a crock of baloney, and remains so.

Ed Huntress

IIRC, the original statement was just that, I don't recall a conclusion
being
included in it.

Sure there was, Greg. It was the rhetorical question, "so who is crazy?"
Maybe you have a different interpretation of the thing, but it looks to me
like he's saying that open carry results in fewer murders.

Here it is again for your reading pleasu

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

"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on,
and walk down the street with no permit of any kind:
some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders
are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" --
Andrew Ford

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

How do you read that, Greg? Is he suggesting that those 4 out of 5 murders
are in some way related to the rest of his statment, or is that just an
aside?

Ed Huntress

"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Richard, you lazy phony. What you "proved" is that you can't tell 4/5
from
3/4; that your idea of "research" is to cut and paste from the NRA's
website; that you have a delicately refined definition of "permit," but
that
you don't understand the word "anyone" at all.

Sure thing, idiot.

The numbers I quoted that you claimed were lies etc were from 2000 and
were just over 76% is I recall correctly. If you have more recent
numbers that disprove them, we'd all like to see them.

How many times do I have to tell you the same things, Richard? Do you ever
bother to look up the things you claim before spouting off, or do you just
make up what you can't get off of the NRA website?

Listen up and write this down so you don't repeat the same nonsense again. I
told you I used 2001 figures, and that, using the same states you used, the
percentage was almost exactly the same for 2001 as it was for 2000. If you
need a quote from the message to penetrate your addled mind, I have them
all. Just let us know what remedial research materials you need.

The point is, you're claiming that you've "proven" the statement Gunner
posted here, you've gotten real fussy and ****y over the meaning of
"permit," but you can't even come up with the "4 out of 5" number in the
quote itself! Do you work at being dense, Richard, or is it something you
come by naturally?


Problem with you is that you made some sort of claim to info
disproving my post early on but it never materialized....just like the
rest of your argument. You couldn't argue the cites so you fell back
on pussy semantics.

You really are dense, Richard, or your memory is shot. I told you I didn't
agree with your list of states. You disallowed some states, for example,
because they do their background checks at a police station or a country
sheriff's office, and issue a "permit" to purchase, that the buyer can carry
right to a dealer and buy a handgun. Nebraska, for one example. There's no
delay, and nothing involved that isn't typical of the states that have
electronic checks at the dealers and state regulations restricting
"prohibited persons" from buying a gun, which is every single state except
Vermont.

But the SAME procedure, carried out at a gun dealer, meets your "no purchase
restrictions" criteria even though they make you wait to buy a gun! South
Dakota and Wisconsin both made your "no restrictions" list even though both
of them require waiting periods. Do they call the authorization after the
waiting period a "permit"? I have no idea. But the point being made, that
these states have no restrictions on purchase, obviously is a crock of bull
if they require waiting periods -- no matter what they call the authorizing
document.

None of that apparently sunk into your thick head, so, rather than argue
with you about your definitions, I just kept it simple and did the same
thing you did: stuck to the statement as it was written. And the statement
as it's written is a ****-up to begin with, because there is only one state
that "allow[s] anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, etc." Not 25.

If you have a problem with math, I'm not inclined to mock the afflicted, but
you can get some wooden blocks or some popsicle sticks and see for yourself
why 76% is not "4 out of 5." The fact that you and "Andrew Ford" came up
with different fractions based on the data from 25 states suggests that one
or the other of you has a basic math problem, or, more likely, that you're
using different lists of states. In either case, your data does not support
what "he" said. That's because you came up with different results, despite
what you keep repeating. Do you get it? Do we have to repeat this in another
way so it will sink in?

So, when you get prissy about "permit" that's just fine, but when I expect
you to recognize the difference between 4/5 and 3/4, that's beneath you to
even acknowledge. And pointing out that "anyone" is an inaccurate thing to
say when some of those states you've counted disallow adults who committed
misdemeanors as children is suddenly "pussy semantics." If that's pussy
semantics, then what is your prissy definition of "permit"? Dickhead
semantics?

It looks like it. You came into this with a chip on your shoulder and got
caught with two problems in your argument: you didn't come up with the same
percentages as the statement you were trying to defend, and you didn't
really check your facts. Only a screwball would count Ohio and Kansas as
states that allow open carry, unless you're more interested in semantics
than in the facts. Those states may have no *state* laws against it, but
they don't have state preemption and they have a LOT of municipalities that
either require purchase permits or that don't allow open carry. As evidence
somehow related to murder rates, it's nonsense.

And speaking of nonsense, the whole statement is nothing but a stupid
soundbite that means nothing. You have Louisiana with no permits and open
carry, but with a (2001) murder rate of 11.2/100k. New Jersey, which has
permits up the wazoo and hardly any carrying of guns of any kind, had a rate
that year of only 4.0. And Nebraska, which you considered restrictive and
didn't count among those virtuous states that allow gun purchase without a
permit was only 2.5: less than 1/4 the murder rate of no-permit, open-carry
Louisiana.

So where's your sense, Richard? Did you leave it in your holster? You
mentioned once that you're retired and that you have a lot of time on your
hands. If you want to make yourself useful, do something constructive with
it. Go look at the facts behind those figures and see what kind of bull****
is being passed around by the pro-gun side, as well as by the antis. You
might actually wind up with something useful to say if you stick to it.

As it is, you're part of the problem, more interested in cooking up a story
that makes you feel good than in figuring out what you're talking about.
You're supporting this jackass statement at great length, a statement that
means nothing, which you can't really support anyway (keep those popsicle
sticks handy), and which would mean nothing even if you reached the same
figures that "Ford" did. You very well could find a higher corelation
between low murder rates and per-capita sales of outhouse toilet seats. In
fact, I'd bet on it.

Merry Christmas.

Ed Huntress

"strabo" wrote in message
...

No state constitution to my knowledge prohibits owning or
carrying a gun openly. Local regulations do the controlling.

"Constitution"? What about state laws? Strabo, go look at the freaking laws.
There is no open carry by state law in Florida, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, etc., etc....

Jesus, don't you ever check a fact before spouting off?

Merry Christmas.

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:38:19 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So where's your sense, Richard? Did you leave it in your holster? You
mentioned once that you're retired and that you have a lot of time on your
hands. If you want to make yourself useful, do something constructive with
it. Go look at the facts behind those figures and see what kind of bull****
is being passed around by the pro-gun side, as well as by the antis. You
might actually wind up with something useful to say if you stick to it.

Ed, do yourself a favor and killfile this idiot- he's never going to
consider your words because that would require thought and that would
require a fully-functioning brain.

Ol' Dick is still posting responses to me, even though I killfiled him
(Dick- that means your rambling and offensive posts don't show up on
my computer screen thingy).

The only reason guys like ol' Dick Lewis even use computers is because
they can't get parts for their broken Radio Shack Navaho CB radios.

He's not worth the effort, unless you're like my cat and enjoy toying
with your victim before administering the coup de grace.
In which case, have at it!

Merry Christmas!

-Carl

Carl Byrns wrote:

Ol' Dick is still posting responses to me, even though I killfiled him
(Dick- that means your rambling and offensive posts don't show up on
my computer screen thingy).

I think the key point that needs noticingis that *you* are still
responding to me, idiot.

Sorta defeats the purpose of your pussy killfile, doesn't it?

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

How many times do I have to tell you the same things, Richard? Do you ever
bother to look up the things you claim before spouting off, or do you just
make up what you can't get off of the NRA website?

Accusing me of making up stuff again, idiot? Didn't you learn that
one the last time?

Listen up and write this down so you don't repeat the same nonsense again. I
told you I used 2001 figures, and that, using the same states you used, the
percentage was almost exactly the same for 2001 as it was for 2000. If you
need a quote from the message to penetrate your addled mind, I have them
all. Just let us know what remedial research materials you need.

So you're saying that your entire argument is over the states that I
listed as requiring a permit to buy or carry a handgun?

Go ahead and list yours as to how they contradict mine and point out
how they do so and let's settle it once and for all.

The point is, you're claiming that you've "proven" the statement Gunner
posted here, you've gotten real fussy and ****y over the meaning of
"permit," but you can't even come up with the "4 out of 5" number in the
quote itself! Do you work at being dense, Richard, or is it something you
come by naturally?

How far is 76% of 15,000 from 80%? I'd tell you but you'd accuse me
of making up the numbers again.

Pathetic idiots, you and carl both.

ral

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Constitution"? What about state laws? Strabo, go look at the freaking laws.
There is no open carry by state law in Florida, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, etc., etc....

Jesus, don't you ever check a fact before spouting off?

The problem is *you*, you ****ing idiot! You cite one criteria in one
post and argue the same in the very next. You accuse folks of not
looking them up but then criticize their sources. You accuse folks of
"making up the numbers" but then cite the very same yourself when it
suits you.

You cite "state laws" in this one but argued that state laws don't
apply in one just yesterday.

What exactly are you trying to prove, idiot? That you simply like
arguing, no matter how wrong or right the argument is?

ed, you are truly a pathetic idiot!

ral

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

"The act of unlawfully taking the property of another through violence
or intimidation".

"Robbery is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from
the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or
threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."

Does anyone else see any difference in those two statements other than
the "attempt" part?

Come on, idiot, you can do better than that.

ral

Sure there was, Greg. It was the rhetorical question, "so who is crazy?"
Maybe you have a different interpretation of the thing,

No, I don't see a conclusion at all. A statement of course. One that is
selective in it's content, but more or less true. Even a suggestion is NOT a
conclusion. To label it a lie is far more of a distortion and "ridiculous
conclusion" that the original statement. That's why, to me it's a draw. And
when it deteriorates into semantics, dictionary quotes of 3rd & 4th level
definitions, and personal insults, it's garbage that's better thrown out than
digested.
Greg Sefton

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Sure there was, Greg. It was the rhetorical question, "so who is crazy?"
Maybe you have a different interpretation of the thing,

No, I don't see a conclusion at all. A statement of course. One that is
selective in it's content, but more or less true.

Well, a rhetorical question has a rhetorical purpose, or it's nonsense and
doesn't belong in the sentence. The statement of fact is one thing; implying
someone is crazy is quite another. That sure sounds to me like a conclusion.

Even a suggestion is NOT a
conclusion. To label it a lie is far more of a distortion and "ridiculous
conclusion" that the original statement. That's why, to me it's a draw.

shrug However you want to see it, I suppose. But the original statement
clearly is false in its fundamental claim (there aren't 25 states where
"anyone can strap on a gun," etc. I read the laws for all 50 states.), and
it also is a distortion in that it switches the issue from the number of
states to the number of murders without noting that those are, on the
average, low-population states, which means that the real rate of murders in
states with open carry is much higher than the assertion implies. That's a
frequent form of intentional distortion -- a lie.


And
when it deteriorates into semantics, dictionary quotes of 3rd & 4th level
definitions, and personal insults, it's garbage that's better thrown out
than
digested.
Greg Sefton

Oh, I agree. But the Richards of the world need some attention, too. I just
don't want to let him think he's being ignored. g

Ed Huntress

"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
...

He's not worth the effort, unless you're like my cat and enjoy toying
with your victim before administering the coup de grace.
In which case, have at it!

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you too, Carl.

As for Richard, he's a peculiar example of the kind I used to run into back
when I was fighting gun-control laws, and it's been interesting to see that
type of mind at work once again.

Ed Huntress

"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message
.net...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Constitution"? What about state laws? Strabo, go look at the freaking
laws.
There is no open carry by state law in Florida, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, etc., etc....

Jesus, don't you ever check a fact before spouting off?

The problem is *you*, you ****ing idiot! You cite one criteria in one
post and argue the same in the very next. You accuse folks of not
looking them up but then criticize their sources. You accuse folks of
"making up the numbers" but then cite the very same yourself when it
suits you.

My, my, Richard, you're getting a little hot under the collar today.

Here's the facts: Strabo said "Local regulations do the controlling." I said
that he's full of it, that there are states in which state laws do the
controlling. Then I cited some examples.

Do you get it? That's all there is to it. He said it's local regulations; I
said he spouted off without checking his facts. You know I'm right, because
you've cited some examples yourself. Here's what you said about
Pennsylvania, for example: "Pennsylvania, no open carry is allowed." Here's
what you said about Florida: "Florida....no open carry allowed." Don't you
even read your own messages? End of story, dickhead.

You cite "state laws" in this one but argued that state laws don't
apply in one just yesterday.

Jesus, you're getting yourself all screwed up. I said that there are states
in which there are enough city and municipal ordinances requiring permits or
disallowing open carry (Kansas and Ohio as examples) in which it's
meaningless to say that you can "strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind." Here's what you said about Ohio: "Ohio has no state
laws prohibiting open carry but most of the state is restricted due to local
laws." Well, for Christ's sake, if "most of the state is restricted," then
what the hell are you talking about, when you say in another place that you
can just "strap it on, and walk down the street"? Again, do you actually
read your own messages?



What exactly are you trying to prove, idiot?

That the days when jerks like you could bull your way through a stupid gun
argument with bombast and bluster are numbered, Richard. Enjoy your
retirement. Go polish your pistol and slap some leather. You'll have more
fun and you'll live longer.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As for Richard, he's a peculiar example of the kind I used to run into back
when I was fighting gun-control laws, and it's been interesting to see that
type of mind at work once again.

The type who doesn't have to fall back to arguing pussy semantics when
proven wrong....because I also don't tend to stick my foot into my
mouth like you and the other idiot.

Arguing the definition of "permit" for christ's sake. How pathetic an
argument can you have?

ral

Ed Huntress

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:13:51 +0000, Richard A. Lewis wrote:

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

"The act of unlawfully taking the property of another through violence
or intimidation".

"Robbery is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from
the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or
threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."

Does anyone else see any difference in those two statements other than
the "attempt" part?

Come on, idiot, you can do better than that.

What about ' robbery is the taking without permission of anothers property'

--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:02:32 +0000 (UTC), Neil Ellwood
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:13:51 +0000, Richard A. Lewis wrote:

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

"The act of unlawfully taking the property of another through violence
or intimidation".

"Robbery is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from
the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or
threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."

Does anyone else see any difference in those two statements other than
the "attempt" part?

Come on, idiot, you can do better than that.

What about ' robbery is the taking without permission of anothers property'

Robbery is the taking of an item from a person. Burglary is taking it
from a building, theft is taking it anywhere else.

When a puke breaks into your barn, and steals your jack, he is not
committing robbery, but burglary. If he stole it from outside the
barn, he committed theft. If he held up a knife and told you to hand
it over, or from your vehicle when you are present, its armed robbery

Like Magazines and Clips..too much misuse of the wrong words creep
into the lingo.

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

In article , Ed Huntress
says...


Go polish your pistol and slap some leather.

"Slap some leather?"

I've never heard it called *that*.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Go polish your pistol and slap some leather.

"Slap some leather?"

I've never heard it called *that*.

Jim


Didn't you ever watch any old Western movies?

mj

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed
Huntress
says...


Go polish your pistol and slap some leather.

"Slap some leather?"

I've never heard it called *that*.

Jim

You'll have to start hanging around a better class of pistol ranges and pick
up the jargon. It's a language unto itself.

There are 101 things you can do with a gun. This is just one of them.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 06:03:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



As for Richard, he's a peculiar example of the kind I used to run into back
when I was fighting gun-control laws, and it's been interesting to see that
type of mind at work once again.

Yeah- it's like kicking dead whales down the beach.
I just *had* to see what Richard was posting and I do believe if he
was left alone in a room with a baseball bat, he'd beat himself up
after a few minutes.

-Carl

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
s.com...
Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Thirsty Viking

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.

On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher
incidence of not being seriously injured.

Thirsty Viking wrote:

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.


On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher
incidence of not being seriously injured.

I'll believe that when they pry my sanity from my cold, dead brain.

Here in Philadelphia, as in most major cities, violent crimes like
armed robbery are an everyday occurance. And, when reported on the 11
o' clock news, they're one of our favorite spectator sports. I don't
actually keep score; but I'm absolutely certain that this year's crop of
armed, dead shop owners outnumber dead or wounded robbers by a huge margin.

In one case last summer, and man whose store had been robbed more
than a dozen times finally decided to buy a gun, and to keep it near the
cash register. After surviving the twelve robberies during which he was
completely unarmed, he was shot to death during his very first attempt
to "defend himself". In another case, reported just recently, the owner
of a small store was shot to death by robbers when he exhanged fire with
them. This by itself wasn't real remarkable, except for the fact that
this young mand had stood in the very same store and watched, four years
ago, when EXACTLY the same thing happened to his father.

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:29:53 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Thirsty Viking wrote:

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.


On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher
incidence of not being seriously injured.

I'll believe that when they pry my sanity from my cold, dead brain.

Here in Philadelphia, as in most major cities, violent crimes like
armed robbery are an everyday occurance. And, when reported on the 11
o' clock news, they're one of our favorite spectator sports. I don't
actually keep score; but I'm absolutely certain that this year's crop of
armed, dead shop owners outnumber dead or wounded robbers by a huge margin.

In one case last summer, and man whose store had been robbed more
than a dozen times finally decided to buy a gun, and to keep it near the
cash register. After surviving the twelve robberies during which he was
completely unarmed, he was shot to death during his very first attempt
to "defend himself". In another case, reported just recently, the owner
of a small store was shot to death by robbers when he exhanged fire with
them. This by itself wasn't real remarkable, except for the fact that
this young mand had stood in the very same store and watched, four years
ago, when EXACTLY the same thing happened to his father.

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

KG

Kirk..for those two examples, I can give you far more where the victim
drove off or killed the bad guys. Were those the only two robberies in
Philly that month?

Want some links?
http://gunsafe.org/armedcitizen.htm
http://www.setyoursights.net/armed-citizen/
Mid page, there are windows, use the scroll bars and
pick your month, pick your year, read.

I dont know what those two fellows did wrong, tactics, lack of proper
mindset, poor shooting skills, or simply bad luck. Shrug... and simply
because they survived previous robberies doesnt mean the bad guys
wouldnt have marched them into the cold box this time and executed
them. Such unfortunately happens all too often.
All we know is this time they died.
You didnt mention in the second instance if he nailed any of the bad
guys. Did he?

There are proper ways and times to use a firearm in self defense, and
at others there is not..sometimes you are facing a stacked deck. But
its far better to have it as an option, than not.

Two points to ponder.......

"Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed anymore than owning a guitar
makes you a musician." - Col.Jeff Cooper

Massad probably says it best.....

"The defensive firearm is a special-purpose piece of safety rescue
equipment, designed to extricate a person . . . from the immediate
threat of savagely violent crime. It is like the fire extinguisher. .
.. . Neither piece of equipment will do you any good if you don't know
how to use it or are not psychologically prepared to face danger with
that gear in your trained hands in a terror situation."

-- Massad Ayoob, Handgun Primer


Kirk...If firearms were worthless for self defense...why do cops
carry? Cops do get killed or injured every year. So why bother to tote
around a 3 pound chunk of metal that gets in your way everytime you
sit down?

In the last 25 yrs, Ive survived five (5) physical attacks, most of
which involved one or more armed attackers, by being armed, trained,
ready and of the proper mindset. I never had to fire a shot, though I
was ready and willing to do so. When I was a cop, I survived a number
of such, though I unfortunately did have to shoot.

Kirk, would you give the car keys to a 16yr old kid who never had
drivers training and send him/her out across Philly for a gallon of
milk on a snowy night?

Your argument tells me that you think cars are useless because that
kid was killed when he piled it up on an overpass. Correct?

Gunner


'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

Not even worth an answer, Gunner.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:13 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Not even worth an answer, Gunner.

KG

?????

I take it that you choose not to try to make your argument then?
Your mind is made up, and I should not confuse you with the facts,
correct?

Interesting, particularly coming from you, whom I consider one of the
Great Minds of this newsgroup.

Looks like even the Gods have blind spots. Shrug

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

Kirk Gordon wrote:




If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

Presuming that the intentions of a "customer" have been shown or announced to
be to rob you and maybe worse, why would that be someone that shouldn't be
shot? If you see that person(s) reach for a weapon and you get to yours first,
what do you do? See if they shoot you before defending yourself? Call the cops
after you're shot?

michael

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:13 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Not even worth an answer, Gunner.

I take it that you choose not to try to make your argument then? Your
mind is made up, and I should not confuse you with the facts,
correct?

Interesting, particularly coming from you, whom I consider one of the
Great Minds of this newsgroup.

Looks like even the Gods have blind spots. Shrug

To make an argement requires that both parties accept the same rules
of logic, and the same standards of argument. You and I have tried this
before, and I've been disappointed. You haven't offered any facts,
confusing or otherwise, which promise even a hint of sound argument,
that I can see. That you consider me a "great mind" is flattering;
but becomes somewhat hollow when you offer me propositions that any
child could shred without effort, if he had reason to spend the time.

I don't know about gods, Gunner. But humans certainly have blind
spots aplenty. Maybe we should ALL adjust our mirrors once in a while.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

michael wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

Presuming that the intentions of a "customer" have been shown or announced to
be to rob you and maybe worse, why would that be someone that shouldn't be
shot? If you see that person(s) reach for a weapon and you get to yours first,
what do you do? See if they shoot you before defending yourself? Call the cops
after you're shot?

I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when
they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their
intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports),
and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the
store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die.
Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the
shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week.

And if you imagine yourself somehow capable of knowing another
person's intentions before he's produced a gun (or a set of car keys, or
a cell phone, or whatever), then you're as dangerous as he is. I
routinely walk around with both hands in the pockets of my jacket or
sweartshirt, when the weather is cold. If I walk up to the sales
counter at my local 7-11 to ask for a pack of cigarretes, while drawing
my right hand out of my jacket, you seem to think that the person behind
the counter has a right or reason to shoot me.

I disagree.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:41:37 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

michael wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

Presuming that the intentions of a "customer" have been shown or announced to
be to rob you and maybe worse, why would that be someone that shouldn't be
shot? If you see that person(s) reach for a weapon and you get to yours first,
what do you do? See if they shoot you before defending yourself? Call the cops
after you're shot?

I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when
they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their
intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports),
and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the
store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die.
Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the
shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week.

No ****..ya think? So why did the one guy become a Darwin Event?
The Gun made him do it?
He did the equivilant of when finding himself driving towards a
cliff..flooring the gas peddle. Poorly trained, no use of tactics at
all from your report..such as it was.

You didnt give enough information in either case to really make a good
analysis of either case. Did the bad guys say to each other..ok..take
him into the back and kill him? At what point would the good guy have
been justified in trying to defend himself? Never?


And if you imagine yourself somehow capable of knowing another
person's intentions before he's produced a gun (or a set of car keys, or
a cell phone, or whatever), then you're as dangerous as he is. I
routinely walk around with both hands in the pockets of my jacket or
sweartshirt, when the weather is cold. If I walk up to the sales
counter at my local 7-11 to ask for a pack of cigarretes, while drawing
my right hand out of my jacket, you seem to think that the person behind
the counter has a right or reason to shoot me.

Lets see what other store keepers have had to face, shall we? From the
cites you refused to read:

Altavista Journal, Altavista, VA, 05/14/03
Store clerk Nicole Tucker, 21, first noticed the man wandering around
Tucker’s Market around 4 p.m. when the store was very busy. He’d said
he was looking for a friend. An hour later, when Tucker was alone in
the store, the man returned. “I was by myself the second time,” she
said. “He confronted me about money, he said, ‘Give me your money or
I’ll blow your brains out.’” The man acted as though he had a gun in
his pocket. As he came around the counter toward her, his view was
momentarily obstructed and Tucker used that to her advantage. She
grabbed the gun kept in the store, which stopped the man in his
tracks. “He must have seen me with it (the gun) because he took off
and ran back out the door. I followed him … I pointed the gun at him,
but I never fired,” she explained. Police were on the scene within 30
seconds, but the suspect remained at large. Tucker’s coworker, Doris
Clark, praised Tucker’s actions. “The only reason he didn’t get
anything was that when he came around the corner, he was facing a
gun,” Clark said. “She was a very brave young lady, and I compliment
her very much for her bravery.”

The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 04/29/03
When two armed men entered the Beyond Wireless phone store on East
38th Street in Indianapolis in an apparent robbery attempt, store
manager Earl L. Dixon Jr. pulled out a gun. He then fired at one of
the armed suspects, fatally wounding him. Dixon said when the two men
entered and drew guns, “I thought I was going to die,” so he dropped
down and retrieved a gun he kept at the business and fired two or
three times at the men. Indianapolis Police Detective Bob Flack
investigated the shooting and said Dixon’s actions were justified.
“Weapons were pointed at him … and he defended himself,” Flack stated.

Press Enterprise, Bloomsburg, PA, 10/26/02
A Berwick, Penn., convenience store owner's stepfather shot a man when
he attacked the owner with a claw hammer. Owner Barry Masick was
waiting on a "customer" who wanted to buy a soda and chips, but didn't
have enough money. The man left the store and went over to a truck and
then returned with a claw hammer and struck Masick on the side of his
head. Masick shouted for Albert Evans, his stepfather and partner who
lives with him in a house next to the store. Evans came running in
with a handgun loaded with birdshot. When the assailant saw the gun,
he raised the hammer toward Evans, who shot him. The suspect fled the
store, holding his neck. The suspect later turned himself in to
receive medical treatment and was charged with felony robbery, theft
and simple assault.

Kingsport Times-News, Kingsport, TN, 01/20/03
A masked man armed with knives approached a pharmacist and demanded
narcotics, but the pharmacist dispensed lead instead. The suspect
entered Marcum's Pharmacy in Kingsport, Tenn., at 2:10 p.m. and
approached pharmacy owner Carl Marcum, demanding the narcotic drugs
OxyContin and Percocet. Marcum pulled his .38-cal. handgun and shot
the suspect, who fled out the back door and drove off in a Buick.
Police notified local hospitals to be on the lookout for a man
suffering from a gunshot wound. Two hours later the suspect, Jeffery
Jessee, was arrested at a local hospital, where he was treated and
released. Jessee was charged with aggravated robbery.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, MO, 01/16/03
Two masked men entered the Michigan Market in St. Louis, Mo., just
around lunchtime, and one man pointed a sawed-off shotgun at the head
of storeowner Martin McLafferty. The owner responded by knocking away
the gun in his face and grabbing his own pistol. He then shot one of
the gunmen, and the suspects fled in a pickup truck. Police found
gravely wounded suspect Charles Jackson shortly after the attempted
robbery. His accomplice, Damon Hayes, was arrested, as well. Jackson
died while in custody, and because he died during the commission of a
felony, his accomplice, Hayes, was charged with murder in addition to
the first-degree robbery charge.

Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA, 02/21/03
Kenneth Maloney, a 79-year-old stamp and coin dealer, has had his
Torrance, Calif., shop robbed several times, the most recent
occurrence leaving him with welts on his temple and wrist where the
robber had struck him. This time, the owner of Mr. Muldoon's Stamps
and Coins fought back and shot the armed, would-be robber in the hip.
"He picked the wrong guy to go in there and stick up," said David
Wells, a Torrance resident and occasional visitor to the store.
Torrance police Lt. Patrick Shortall reported that the robber was
booked at the local medical center's jail ward.

Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 02/18/03
Charles Leon Downen, owner of Downen Oil Co., was in his business
office one morning with his grandson (and employee), Charles Randall
Downen, when two men entered and asked to use the restroom. When the
men returned, one grabbed the elder Downen, put a gun to his head and
said, "This is a robbery." The business owner struggled with the
attacker, later identified as Troy Williams, to gain control of the
gun. It went off, striking Williams. His accomplice, Phillip Williams,
then ran from the store with Downen's grandson chasing after him with
a .45-cal. handgun. Sergeant Alan Quattlebaum of the police
department's homicide division reported that Phillip Williams "had a
rifle down the leg of his pants." Phillip Williams and the younger
Downen exchanged fire in the parking lot. When police arrived,
Downen's grandson was holding Phillip Williams at gunpoint on the
ground. Both suspects were pronounced dead. The Downens were unharmed
in the incident.

News-Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 02/23/03
A man armed with a knife approached Wanda Petty in the Merita Bread
Bakery Outlet and demanded money from the business owner. Petty's
husband, James, was working in a back room when the commotion started.
When the would-be bandit heard James Petty in the store, he ran toward
him. Petty then shot the suspect twice with his handgun. The suspect,
Larry Thomas Young, was charged with attempted aggravated robbery,
aggravated assault and violation of parole.

The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA, 04/18/03
According to New Orleans police, an armed man entered Harrison Grocery
in Lakeview, La., at 8:15 a.m. and demanded money from the owner,
Ambrose Plakotaris. The grocer exchanged gunfire with the would-be
robber, who died later at a local hospital. Plakotaris, who suffered a
gunshot wound to the arm, was treated and releasd.
The Baltimore Sun, Baltimore, Md., 10/28/01
The manager of a Citgo gas station/mini-mart shot and killed a robbery
suspect when the man appeared to be reaching for his gun. The manager
had observed a female clerk being robbed at gunpoint on the store's
video monitor. When the manager confronted the suspect at the front of
the store, he said the robber appeared to be reaching into his
waistband, so the manager shot him. According to Angelique Cook-Hayes,
a police spokeswoman, the would-be robber was carrying a BB gun that
resembled a semi-automatic handgun

The Clarkksdale Press Register, Clarksdale, Miss., 10/29/01
Bobby Wolfe was locking the front door of his Moon Lake, Miss., store
one night when a man came around the icebox near the door, pointed a
gun and demanded money. "He had a gun in his hand, and the other hand
was over his face," Wolfe recalled. The storekeeper dropped and pulled
a, 38-cal. revolver from his pocket. "We think the robbers shot first
and Mr. Wolfe returned fire; 'stated Cuohoma County Sheriff Andrew
Thompson of the exchange that followed. When Wolfe took off running
for his nearby home, he encountered a second gunman who began firing
at him. "He shot two or three times, and I shot one more time; 'said
Wolfe. Within five minutes of the robbery, one gunman was dead, Wolfe
was wounded. and police picked up three suspects-one of whom was
mortally wounded-making a getaway Wolfe later said of the men, whom he
recognized, "... I'm sure they intended to kill me because they know
I'd recognize them."

The Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, Ohio, 11/13/01
An Elsmere, Ky., man was shot and killed by a clerk after he tried to
rob a Covington, Ky., convenience store. The crook, Perry Pinkelton,
had brandished a handgun and demanded money from a store clerk,
reported Covington Police Capt. Charles Gurren. When another store
employee, armed with a handgun, confronted him, the robber fired his
gun three times, but missed. The armed employee returned fire,
shooting the robber several times. A neighbor later reported that,
"Two weeks ago, someone put a gun in [the owner's] face and robbed
him."

Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA, 12/06/01
A BUSINESSWOMAN THWARTED A ROBBERY in her store when she responded to
a man's demand for cash by pulling her 9mm handgun. Erin Moul, owner
of a Carlisle, Pennsylvania, bookstore, said she felt the man was up
to something soon after he entered the store. "He came in about 10
minutes before 6 and says, "Do you sell any comic books,'" Moul
recalled. When she told him no, the man "meandered" around the store
then came behind her counter. As Moul backed away toward her purse,
the man said he needed her to open the cash register. When he repeated
the demand, Moul responded, "No, and I have a really good reason not
to open my register. You want to see why?" She then pulled out her
handgun and said, "Why don't you try robbing somebody who doesn't have
a gun?" At that, the man apologized and quickly fled. Moul called
police, and a suspect was in custody within an hour.

Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, 12/23/01
A GUN SHOP EMPLOYEE IN ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA, shot and killed one of
four men when they attempted to rob the store. The employee was
working in the office of the Euro Arms Gun Store one Friday morning
when he heard a commotion, said Sheriff's Deputy Roberta Granek. When
he exited the office, one of the robbers confronted him, and the
employee shot him with a semi-automatic rifle. The wounded man's
cohorts fled the store, but police later apprehended two of them.

Boston Globe, Boston, MA, 12/29/01
THREE MEN, ARMED WITH GUNS AND KNIVES, rushed the cash register at a
Boston-area liquor store just before closing one night. During the
melee, one clerk's hand was cut and another was shot in the arm. Then,
in a moment's distraction, a third clerk armed with a handgun turned
the tide, shooting all three suspects and sending them fleeing. Two of
the suspects were apprehended by police on the street amid a pool of
blood and cash. The third was found in the hallway of a nearby
building with a gunshot wound to his arm.

Richmond Times-Dispatch, Richmond, VA, 1/08/02
Two men armed with handguns entered a Richmond, Virginia, mini-mart
and demanded money from the owner, who was alone in the store. When
the robbers began to pistol-whip the owner, he grabbed his own pistol
and shot one of his attackers. The wounded robber, fleeing with cash
and lottery tickets, collapsed on the sidewalk, and his cohort escaped
in a car. Police spokeswoman Jennifer Reilly said the men matched
descriptions of two who had held up other stores in South Richmond the
previous day.

The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY, 1/11/02
A Niagara Falls, New York, shopkeeper defended himself against a
knife-wielding robber by grabbing a shotgun from behind the counter.
Teddy Patronski was working in his Memory Lane Gift Shop one afternoon
when a man entered holding a 6-inch knife. The suspect lunged over the
counter and demanded money from Patronski, cutting the shopkeeper on
the nose, according to Officer Lisa Marrone. Patronski then grabbed a
shotgun from behind the counter, and the suspect fled the store.

The Desert Sun, Palm Springs, CA, 1/26/02
A Coachella, California, store clerk, who said he'd been robbed at
gunpoint twice previously, defended himself when a robber aimed a gun
at him in the Y&M Market. Mohammed Alwishah told deputies that two men
entered the store one Friday about noon. One man pulled a six-pack of
beer out of a cooler. "He took it to the counter as if he was going to
buy it," said Deputy Sarah Bautista. The second man then allegedly
pulled out a gun and pointed it at Alwishah's head; but the clerk
grabbed his gun and shot first, hitting the gunman in the leg and
stomach. After the shooting, the second crook fled along with two
other men who had been at the front of the store, said Bautista.
Alwishah later said, "I thank God everything is all right now

News-Journal, Daytona Beach, FL, 3/20/02
Ever since the Blockbuster had been robbed last January, Robert
Shockey kept watch over his son when he worked the night shift there.
One night the protective father was waiting for his son as he closed
out the cash register. Shockey had just entered the store when
suddenly two masked men burst through the front door. The two
intruders shouted obscenities and threatened to harm him and the two
employees still in the store. One man, armed with a rifle, pointed the
gun at Shockey, according to witnesses. But when the gunman turned
away for a moment, Shockey saw his chance. "I pulled my gun and told
him to freeze and drop the gun," he said later. Instead of complying,
the gunman pointed his rifle at Shockey, who then fired two shots at
the gunman, striking him in the chest and neck. The gunman's cohort
then reached for the rifle and Shockey shot him, as well. "I felt like
I didn't have a choice," he said. "I felt they had full intentions of
killing us."

The Columbia County News Times, Martinez, GA, 3/20/02
When a would-be robber pulled a knife on the owner of a Harlem, Ga.,
convenience store, she responded by pulling out a .38-cal. revolver.
Eunice Jernigan says she's been keeping a gun at her store for 20
years, ever since she was first threatened with a knife. On March 14,
two young men entered her store, picked up several items and brought
them to the counter. One man turned away from Jernigan and asked the
other for some money to purchase the items. When he turned back toward
her, the man laid a knife on the counter. "He had his hand on it and
he said, 'Give me the money out of the register.' I backed up ... and
got my gun ... I pointed it straight at him." Jernigan said she then
told him she would blow his brains out, "and out the door they went."

The Star Press, Muncie, IN, 4/10/02
A convicted bandit's latest crime spree was brought to a halt by an
armed store clerk in a Muncie, Ind., convenience store. A clerk at
Zipp's Deli told investigators a man [later identified as Willie
Brown] came into the store, told the clerk he had a gun in his jacket
and demanded money from the cash register. Brown allegedly got away
with some cash, but not before the clerk fired his own gun at the
robber, hitting him at least once. Police found the wounded man a few
minutes later in a nearby home. Money allegedly taken from the deli
was recovered, as well, according to authorities. Brown has two
previous convictions for robbery and burglary and was released from
prison last May, according to state Department of Correction records.

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

Need more ?

Lots and lots more available to post.

I disagree.

Tell that to the store owners.

KG

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

and here I was about to jump all over that one, Gunner. You take all
the fun out proving them wrong

ral

Kirk Gordon wrote:

I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage,

I assumed that of you when you from the beginning. What's your point?

even when
they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their
intentions

Robbers, by way of the simple fact that you called them "robbers" have
one intention and that is to "rob"....they, in most cases, forget that
they even have the gun in their hand (research and read any of the
thousands of case files if you doubt that one) and have the firearm
for no other purpose than to intimidate the victims into giving up the
goods so to speak. The large majority of them are "surprised" if the
gun goes off. Store owners who draw firearms, by comparison, do so
with the expressed intent of killing or wounding the threat in front
of them in most cases.

Your logic that since the robber has his out first, the shopkeeper is
at a disadvantage isn't upheld by the evidence.

ral

Carl Byrns wrote:

more useless bull****....

Still waiting, idiot.

****ing pathetic.

ral

Kirk Gordon wrote:

michael wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote:

If you wait till the robber (or mugger, rapist, or criminal type of
your choice) shows his gun, then it's already too late to reach for
yours. If you reach for yours first, then you're just begging for a
chance to shoot somebody you shouldn't.

Presuming that the intentions of a "customer" have been shown or announced to
be to rob you and maybe worse, why would that be someone that shouldn't be
shot? If you see that person(s) reach for a weapon and you get to yours first,
what do you do? See if they shoot you before defending yourself? Call the cops
after you're shot?

I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when
they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their
intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports),
and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the
store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die.
Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the
shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week.

And if you imagine yourself somehow capable of knowing another
person's intentions before he's produced a gun (or a set of car keys, or
a cell phone, or whatever), then you're as dangerous as he is. I
routinely walk around with both hands in the pockets of my jacket or
sweartshirt, when the weather is cold. If I walk up to the sales
counter at my local 7-11 to ask for a pack of cigarretes, while drawing
my right hand out of my jacket, you seem to think that the person behind
the counter has a right or reason to shoot me.

I disagree.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

You missed my meaning, Kirk. Reread the first sentence I wrote. The part about the
intentions being shown or announced. We are not talking about rocket scientists
here. Maybe the perp says he is about to rob you, then reaches into his jacket. I'm
sure most of us have seen the blooper & cops shows where even dumber acts have been
done. So, what if the storekeep knows he is about to be robbed? At what fraction or
percentage of any doubt do you recommend the clerk to stand and wait?
95%...99%...73%

michael

Kirk Gordon wrote in message ...
Thirsty Viking wrote:

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2
MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes
that were REPORTED in 2002.

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the
guns weren't of much use.


On the contrary, the only studies done show a much higher
incidence of not being seriously injured.

I'll believe that when they pry my sanity from my cold, dead brain.

Here in Philadelphia, as in most major cities, violent crimes like
armed robbery are an everyday occurance. And, when reported on the 11
o' clock news, they're one of our favorite spectator sports. I don't
actually keep score; but I'm absolutely certain that this year's crop of
armed, dead shop owners outnumber dead or wounded robbers by a huge margin.


We don't have many guns and we don't have much armed
robbery, either. Girls walk around here with plenty of
cash in their purses in the middle of the night without
particular fears of rape or robbery. Of course there's
always *some* crime anywhere, but in a fairly gun-free
society, getting shot is very uncommon.

Gunner et al are full of **** on the gun issue. These
people do absolutely NOTHING when it's TIME to go to
Washington and use the damn things, but as a side-effect
of their little fixation lots of other people get killed.
As far as I can see there is no redeeming value whatsoever
to their arguments.