Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#401
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#402
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#403
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
#404
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#405
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#407
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#408
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#410
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#411
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#413
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#418
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#419
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#420
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#421
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#422
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#423
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 ================================================== |
#424
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#425
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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 |
#426
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#427
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"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. |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#429
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#430
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Not even worth an answer, Gunner.
KG -- I'm sick of spam. The 2 in my address doesn't belong there. |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#433
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#434
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
and here I was about to jump all over that one, Gunner. You take all
the fun out proving them wrong ral |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#438
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl Byrns wrote:
more useless bull****.... Still waiting, idiot. ****ing pathetic. ral |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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 |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? | UK diy | |||
Deep drawing of aluminum bottle | Metalworking | |||
Deep hole drill profile question | Metalworking |