[
Subject: Darwin Awards



Yes, it's that magical time of the year again when the Darwin Awards are
bestowed, honoring the least evolved among us. Here then, are the
glorious winners:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended
victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California, would-be robber
James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered
down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it
worked..... And now, the honorable mentions:

2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a
meat-cutting machine and, after a little shopping around, submitted
a claim to his insurance company. The company expecting negligence
sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the
machine and he also lost a finger. The chef's claim was approved.

3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car
during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his vehicle to find a
woman had taken the space. Understandably, he shot her.

4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus
driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be
transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to
admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and
offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the
passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the
patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies The
deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.

5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious
head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he
received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply
trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train
before he was hit.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash
drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the
register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash
from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The
total amount of cash he got from the drawer...$15. (If someone
points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?)

7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided
that he'd just throw a cinderblock through a liquor store window,
grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinderblock and heaved
it over his head at the window. The cinderblock bounced back and
hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The
liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was
caught on videotape.

8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man
grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and
the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the
snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They
put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then
taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To
which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I
stole the purse from."

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into
a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun, and
demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he
couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man
ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren't available for
breakfast. The man, frustrated, walked away.

******A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER*****

10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home
parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for.
Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next
to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that
the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline and plugged his siphon
hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of
the vehicle declined to press charges, saying that it was the best
laugh he'd ever had.



In the interest of bettering human kind please share these with
your friends and family ... unless of course one of these 10
individuals by chance is a distant relative or long lost friend. In
that case be glad they are distant and hope they remain lost.
]

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure, and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

Cliff wrote:
*****A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER*****

10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home
parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for.
Police arrived at the scene to find a very sick man curled up next
to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that
the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline and plugged his siphon
hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of
the vehicle declined to press charges, saying that it was the best
laugh he'd ever had.

Yawn, this was only funny the first time this was posted. Years later
and multiple reposts it aint.

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

What a great testimony showing that if you register as a democrat, you
shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

Guy

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

%%%% Hummmm----

Hawthorne, California

From Los Angeles' CBS2.com of April 21, 2006
Clerk Kills Gunman, Wounds Teen During Robbery

A liquor store clerk in Hawthorne fatally shot an armed thief and
accidentally wounded a 15-year-old girl during an attempted robbery on
Thursday night.

The shooting occurred around 7:30 p.m. at a liquor store in the 13300
block of Prairie Avenue, between El Segundo Boulevard and 133rd Street, said
Deputy Oscar Butao of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

The clerk shot at an armed gunman and his accomplice as they tried to rob
the store. The gunman, who never fired, according to Butao, died at the
scene.

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

Fort Wayne, Indiana

From the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette of April 19, 2006
Employee thwarts robbery attempt

Worker shows gun; suspect takes off

An armed man tried to rob a south-side pizza restaurant Monday night but
left without any money after an employee displayed his own gun.

Fort Wayne police were called to Tasty Pizza, 4302 Fairfield Ave., at
10:47 p.m. for a report of the attempted heist.

A Tasty Pizza employee told police that a man came in and asked for a
menu. He then left the restaurant but came back inside. The man laid a black
gun that looked like a BB gun on the counter pointing the barrel toward the
employee and demanded money, a police report said.

The employee then lifted his shirt to reveal a Colt .45 in its holster
and told the robbery suspect to leave, the report said.

The man left and walked to a nearby alley where he got on the back of a
moped. A witness said another person was driving the moped, the report said.

The man was described as black, between 17 and 19 years old, about
5-foot-10, with a thin build.

He was wearing black pants, a black hooded sweatshirt, a black skull cap
and a camouflage T-shirt, the report said.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Newton, Mississippi

From Meridian's WTOK.com of April 14, 2006
Newton Police Probe Robbery, Shooting

Newton police say they are close to filing charges in the case of a
robbery "gone bad."

Around 4:00 p.m. on Thursday at Joe's Tire Shop in Newton, investigators
say two teens entered the store with a pistol, demanding money.

"He came in and raised the firearm up at the victim. At that time a
struggle ensued," said Lt. Brian Kelly of the Newton Police Department. "The
suspect then attempted to leave, and when he turned around he raised the
handgun up at him and the suspect was shot at that time."

Investigators say the gunman was shot with a hidden shotgun that the
clerk had managed to get. After the shot was fired, police say the
15-year-old suspect and his 18-year-old accomplice fled through a wooded
area to some nearby apartments where they were later apprehended.

Both suspects are said to be storm evacuees from New Orleans. Officers
say the gunman's injury to the arm was not life threatening.

Formal charges have not been filed, but both suspects are still being
questioned by police.
------------------------------------------

Anniston, Alabama

From Birmingham's WIAT.com of April 13, 2006
Anniston Business Robbery

An Anniston business owner is in the clear after shooting a robbery
suspect in self-defense. The robbers attempted to shakedown a pawnshop. Now,
three are in jail and one's got a gunshot wound to remember it by.

The owner of the 202 Pawn Shop says four people charged in the attempted
robbery worked as a team, trying to distract him while one stole some
jewelry and ran out. Investigators say the bandits jumped into a car. The
store owner, who didn't want to give his name, ran after them armed with a
pistol and ready for action.

"He pulled up like he was gonna run over me and at that point I pulled
down on him," said the owner.

One jumped out and ran into a dead-end alley behind the building.

"He couldn't get out so it was between me and him, you know, hit brick
wall or me, and he tried to come through me and when he did that's when he
pushed me back like, that's when I fired, pistol went off and evidently shot
him in the foot," said the owner.

By that time, deputies had arrived along with paramedics.

Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson said, "He was carried to the
hospital, they did some minor surgery to remove the bullet from the
foot.that has now been recovered and will be used as evidence."
Amerson says Alabama law already covers such a situation.

"That man had a right to use his weapon in self-protection and he did so
and from everything we can see he faces no legal liability for that," said
Amerson.

One of the four people involved in the incident has already made her
$500 bond on a lesser offense. The remaining three are all still in jail on
$75,000 bond.
--------------------------------------------

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

From the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal of April 12, 2006
J.D.'s Market owner shoots robbery suspect

Convenience store owner Karim Barakat feared for his life when an armed
robber demanded money and cocked his handgun about 7:45 p.m. Tuesday at
J.D.'s Market in downtown Murfreesboro, a police spokesman said.

Instead of giving up any money, Barakat reached for his own handgun and
shot suspected robber Edward Christopher Evans, 24, in the arm, said
Murfreesboro Police Lt. Alvin Baird.

Evans, who is expected to be charged in connection with the robbery, was
treated at Middle Tennessee Medical Center's emergency room.

Barakat's wife and daughter were inside the Maney Avenue store at the
corner of Vine Street during the robbery and shooting. They were not
injured.
-------------------------------------------

Houston, Texas

From the Click2Houston.com of April 11, 2006
Pawn Shop Owner Opens Fire On 3 Armed Robbers

Shootout Caught On Tape

The owner of a southwest Houston pawnshop opened fire on three armed men
who tried to rob his business and the shootout was caught on tape, KPRC
Local 2 reported Tuesday.

Gunmen entered the A Plus Pawn Shop, in the 11200 block of South
Wilcrest, on March 28, and started shooting, according to witnesses.

"I grabbed the first gun I could find and started firing," owner Steve
Smith said. "They planned on taking us out, I think. That's the way I
figured because they never said a word."

Witnesses said the gun battle sounded like fireworks.

"It looked like a scene from a movie at first. It was like, this cannot
be happening," a witness said.

A female employee was shot in the chest and survived.

The shootout was caught on tape by the store's new surveillance video
system.

"I really would like to get them off the street because it's going to
happen to somebody else," Smith said.

With 20 years in the business, Smith said he has never come face-to-face
with gunfire.

"I'm kind of afraid to leave here sometimes because I'm afraid
something's going to happen, like they may come back after me," he said.
----------------------------------------

Phoenix, Arizona

From April 7, 2006 KTVK channel 3:
A man drove his friend to a bank Friday morning but ended up being an
unwilling accomplice in a robbery.

It happened at Compass Bank near 35th Avenue and Thomas Road where a man
using an ATM was confronted by a man with a gun.

It turns out the suspect got more than he bargained for. He's in a
Valley hospital after the customer he robbed grabbed his own gun and shot
the man.

Pat Claussen, a witness, says she was in line to use the ATM when the
armed robber made his move.

"He grabbed the kid around the waist and put his hand in his back pocket
then grabbed his billfold," Claussen said.

But the suspect didn't get far. That's because the customer reached into
his own truck, grabbed a gun and started firing.

The suspect took a bullet in the leg then hopped into this getaway car.

But during the commotion, the panicked driver ended up smashing into an
electrical box.

"I was sitting over there and all of a sudden bam, bam, bam," said Scott
Young, who witnessed the shooting.

Young, a construction worker, watched in disbelief as the wounded
suspect attempted to flee on foot.

"I heard at least eight shots," he said.

A short while later, police nabbed the suspect and he was taken to St.
Joseph's Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Officers questioned his accomplice in the back of a police car but
eventually released him.

"I'm ****ed off," said the suspected accomplice, Frank Canez.

Canez owns the car, now riddled with bullet holes, that the suspect
attempted to get away in.

Canez says he knew nothing about the suspect's plan to rob someone at
the ATM. He says the suspect is an acquaintance who promised him gas money
for driving him to the bank.

"Next thing I know, he comes running to the car like this, like he had a
gun, and tells me to go and they just start shooting each other," he said.
----------------------------------------

Roselawn, Ohio

From ChannelCincinnati.com of April 4, 2006
Store Owner Shoots Would-Be Robber

Man With Leg Wound Goes To Hospital

A Roselawn store owner turned the tables on a would-be robber late
Monday night.

Cincinnati police said the owner of the Shop-Rite on Reading Road told
them a man walked into the store shortly after 9:30 p.m. and attempted to
rob him.

The owner said he pulled out a gun and shot at the robber. He told
officers that he thought he hit the man in the leg.

Just before 11 p.m., a man came to the emergency room at University
Hospital with a gunshot wound to the leg. Officers responded to the hospital
and determined that the victim may be the robbery

The shooting is still under investigation.
------------------------------

%%%% Need some more proof?



Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

Exactly! Even if every single law abiding citizen were disarmed too many
people would have them. Crooks ignore your silly laws. It's their job. Gun
control is the epitome of impotence because the fevered dreams that spawn
it assume making the sheep weaker impresses the wolf.

Criminalizing objects is never an intelligent way to solve problems. The
people are the problem, and typically only a tiny minority of them. Even
if that problem minority were precisely 1, there would be 1 too many of
them around. Remove the *people* who are that criminal element from
society and your problems would evaporate as if by magic.

You're finally startin' to catch on Cliff. Good man...

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of surviving an
encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

The smart ones who are lucky to be free of any manic paranoia most
*certainly* are. I know at least one teller and one manager at my bank are
usually packing, and the clerks at the little store just up the street are
always armed. Some better than others. It's one of the reasons I patronize
those establishments. They're a lot safer than stores own and operated by
schizoid farm animals who think giving up their hammers makes it easier
for them to drive framing nails.

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?

No Cliff, you managed to give suitable testimony to the ineffectiveness of
so called "gun control" twice now without having to be subjected to
anything as brutal as being shot. Fact is you managed to stumble into it
by way of your own lack of wits, which makes you a laughable but
*loveable* little fella who deserves an extra cookie with his warm cocoa
this evening. :0P

Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers. BTW, Where did they get the
guns? Steal them from someone

BINGO!

That's *three* cookies for you!

In spite of all the laws against things like stealing, and criminals
possessing and using firearms, those crooks **gasp!** still have them. How
could something like this possibly be happening? It's *illegal* for God's
sake!

You're certainly impressing the hell out of us today with your sudden jump
in IQ Cliff. Kudos.

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:34:49 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

%%%% Hummmm----

Hawthorne, California

From Los Angeles' CBS2.com of April 21, 2006
Clerk Kills Gunman, Wounds Teen During Robbery

A liquor store clerk in Hawthorne fatally shot an armed thief and
accidentally wounded a 15-year-old girl during an attempted robbery on
Thursday night.

The shooting occurred around 7:30 p.m. at a liquor store in the 13300
block of Prairie Avenue, between El Segundo Boulevard and 133rd Street, said
Deputy Oscar Butao of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

The clerk shot at an armed gunman and his accomplice as they tried to rob
the store. The gunman, who never fired, according to Butao, died at the
scene.

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

Fort Wayne, Indiana

From the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette of April 19, 2006
Employee thwarts robbery attempt

Worker shows gun; suspect takes off

An armed man tried to rob a south-side pizza restaurant Monday night but
left without any money after an employee displayed his own gun.

Fort Wayne police were called to Tasty Pizza, 4302 Fairfield Ave., at
10:47 p.m. for a report of the attempted heist.

A Tasty Pizza employee told police that a man came in and asked for a
menu. He then left the restaurant but came back inside. The man laid a black
gun that looked like a BB gun on the counter pointing the barrel toward the
employee and demanded money, a police report said.

The employee then lifted his shirt to reveal a Colt .45 in its holster
and told the robbery suspect to leave, the report said.

The man left and walked to a nearby alley where he got on the back of a
moped. A witness said another person was driving the moped, the report said.

The man was described as black, between 17 and 19 years old, about
5-foot-10, with a thin build.

He was wearing black pants, a black hooded sweatshirt, a black skull cap
and a camouflage T-shirt, the report said.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Newton, Mississippi

From Meridian's WTOK.com of April 14, 2006
Newton Police Probe Robbery, Shooting

Newton police say they are close to filing charges in the case of a
robbery "gone bad."

Around 4:00 p.m. on Thursday at Joe's Tire Shop in Newton, investigators
say two teens entered the store with a pistol, demanding money.

"He came in and raised the firearm up at the victim. At that time a
struggle ensued," said Lt. Brian Kelly of the Newton Police Department. "The
suspect then attempted to leave, and when he turned around he raised the
handgun up at him and the suspect was shot at that time."

Investigators say the gunman was shot with a hidden shotgun that the
clerk had managed to get. After the shot was fired, police say the
15-year-old suspect and his 18-year-old accomplice fled through a wooded
area to some nearby apartments where they were later apprehended.

Both suspects are said to be storm evacuees from New Orleans. Officers
say the gunman's injury to the arm was not life threatening.

Formal charges have not been filed, but both suspects are still being
questioned by police.
------------------------------------------

Anniston, Alabama

From Birmingham's WIAT.com of April 13, 2006
Anniston Business Robbery

An Anniston business owner is in the clear after shooting a robbery
suspect in self-defense. The robbers attempted to shakedown a pawnshop. Now,
three are in jail and one's got a gunshot wound to remember it by.

The owner of the 202 Pawn Shop says four people charged in the attempted
robbery worked as a team, trying to distract him while one stole some
jewelry and ran out. Investigators say the bandits jumped into a car. The
store owner, who didn't want to give his name, ran after them armed with a
pistol and ready for action.

"He pulled up like he was gonna run over me and at that point I pulled
down on him," said the owner.

One jumped out and ran into a dead-end alley behind the building.

"He couldn't get out so it was between me and him, you know, hit brick
wall or me, and he tried to come through me and when he did that's when he
pushed me back like, that's when I fired, pistol went off and evidently shot
him in the foot," said the owner.

By that time, deputies had arrived along with paramedics.

Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson said, "He was carried to the
hospital, they did some minor surgery to remove the bullet from the
foot.that has now been recovered and will be used as evidence."
Amerson says Alabama law already covers such a situation.

"That man had a right to use his weapon in self-protection and he did so
and from everything we can see he faces no legal liability for that," said
Amerson.

One of the four people involved in the incident has already made her
$500 bond on a lesser offense. The remaining three are all still in jail on
$75,000 bond.
--------------------------------------------

Murfreesboro, Tennessee

From the Murfreesboro Daily News Journal of April 12, 2006
J.D.'s Market owner shoots robbery suspect

Convenience store owner Karim Barakat feared for his life when an armed
robber demanded money and cocked his handgun about 7:45 p.m. Tuesday at
J.D.'s Market in downtown Murfreesboro, a police spokesman said.

Instead of giving up any money, Barakat reached for his own handgun and
shot suspected robber Edward Christopher Evans, 24, in the arm, said
Murfreesboro Police Lt. Alvin Baird.

Evans, who is expected to be charged in connection with the robbery, was
treated at Middle Tennessee Medical Center's emergency room.

Barakat's wife and daughter were inside the Maney Avenue store at the
corner of Vine Street during the robbery and shooting. They were not
injured.
-------------------------------------------

Houston, Texas

From the Click2Houston.com of April 11, 2006
Pawn Shop Owner Opens Fire On 3 Armed Robbers

Shootout Caught On Tape

The owner of a southwest Houston pawnshop opened fire on three armed men
who tried to rob his business and the shootout was caught on tape, KPRC
Local 2 reported Tuesday.

Gunmen entered the A Plus Pawn Shop, in the 11200 block of South
Wilcrest, on March 28, and started shooting, according to witnesses.

"I grabbed the first gun I could find and started firing," owner Steve
Smith said. "They planned on taking us out, I think. That's the way I
figured because they never said a word."

Witnesses said the gun battle sounded like fireworks.

"It looked like a scene from a movie at first. It was like, this cannot
be happening," a witness said.

A female employee was shot in the chest and survived.

The shootout was caught on tape by the store's new surveillance video
system.

"I really would like to get them off the street because it's going to
happen to somebody else," Smith said.

With 20 years in the business, Smith said he has never come face-to-face
with gunfire.

"I'm kind of afraid to leave here sometimes because I'm afraid
something's going to happen, like they may come back after me," he said.
----------------------------------------

Phoenix, Arizona

From April 7, 2006 KTVK channel 3:
A man drove his friend to a bank Friday morning but ended up being an
unwilling accomplice in a robbery.

It happened at Compass Bank near 35th Avenue and Thomas Road where a man
using an ATM was confronted by a man with a gun.

It turns out the suspect got more than he bargained for. He's in a
Valley hospital after the customer he robbed grabbed his own gun and shot
the man.

Pat Claussen, a witness, says she was in line to use the ATM when the
armed robber made his move.

"He grabbed the kid around the waist and put his hand in his back pocket
then grabbed his billfold," Claussen said.

But the suspect didn't get far. That's because the customer reached into
his own truck, grabbed a gun and started firing.

The suspect took a bullet in the leg then hopped into this getaway car.

But during the commotion, the panicked driver ended up smashing into an
electrical box.

"I was sitting over there and all of a sudden bam, bam, bam," said Scott
Young, who witnessed the shooting.

Young, a construction worker, watched in disbelief as the wounded
suspect attempted to flee on foot.

"I heard at least eight shots," he said.

A short while later, police nabbed the suspect and he was taken to St.
Joseph's Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Officers questioned his accomplice in the back of a police car but
eventually released him.

"I'm ****ed off," said the suspected accomplice, Frank Canez.

Canez owns the car, now riddled with bullet holes, that the suspect
attempted to get away in.

Canez says he knew nothing about the suspect's plan to rob someone at
the ATM. He says the suspect is an acquaintance who promised him gas money
for driving him to the bank.

"Next thing I know, he comes running to the car like this, like he had a
gun, and tells me to go and they just start shooting each other," he said.
----------------------------------------

Roselawn, Ohio

From ChannelCincinnati.com of April 4, 2006
Store Owner Shoots Would-Be Robber

Man With Leg Wound Goes To Hospital

A Roselawn store owner turned the tables on a would-be robber late
Monday night.

Cincinnati police said the owner of the Shop-Rite on Reading Road told
them a man walked into the store shortly after 9:30 p.m. and attempted to
rob him.

The owner said he pulled out a gun and shot at the robber. He told
officers that he thought he hit the man in the leg.

Just before 11 p.m., a man came to the emergency room at University
Hospital with a gunshot wound to the leg. Officers responded to the hospital
and determined that the victim may be the robbery

The shooting is still under investigation.
------------------------------

%%%% Need some more proof?



Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

Two guys shot in the leg, one in the foot and one that fled after
being shot with a shotgun? Seems like those who would have guns
for defense would be more skilled with them.

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:15:02 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

Exactly! Even if every single law abiding citizen were disarmed too many
people would have them. Crooks ignore your silly laws. It's their job. Gun
control is the epitome of impotence because the fevered dreams that spawn
it assume making the sheep weaker impresses the wolf.

Criminalizing objects is never an intelligent way to solve problems. The
people are the problem, and typically only a tiny minority of them. Even
if that problem minority were precisely 1, there would be 1 too many of
them around. Remove the *people* who are that criminal element from
society and your problems would evaporate as if by magic.

You're finally startin' to catch on Cliff. Good man...

How odd then that where there are fewer guns there are fewer gun
deaths. There should be more, right?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of surviving an
encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

The smart ones who are lucky to be free of any manic paranoia most
*certainly* are. I know at least one teller and one manager at my bank are
usually packing, and the clerks at the little store just up the street are
always armed. Some better than others. It's one of the reasons I patronize
those establishments. They're a lot safer than stores own and operated by
schizoid farm animals who think giving up their hammers makes it easier
for them to drive framing nails.

Insurance rates go way down, right? LMAO !!!

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?

No Cliff, you managed to give suitable testimony to the ineffectiveness of
so called "gun control" twice now without having to be subjected to
anything as brutal as being shot. Fact is you managed to stumble into it
by way of your own lack of wits, which makes you a laughable but
*loveable* little fella who deserves an extra cookie with his warm cocoa
this evening. :0P

Cookies good.

Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers. BTW, Where did they get the
guns? Steal them from someone

BINGO!

That's *three* cookies for you!

How much free bait do you have?

In spite of all the laws against things like stealing, and criminals
possessing and using firearms, those crooks **gasp!** still have them. How
could something like this possibly be happening? It's *illegal* for God's
sake!

You're certainly impressing the hell out of us today with your sudden jump
in IQ Cliff. Kudos.

Few clues there.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:04:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Two guys shot in the leg, one in the foot and one that fled after
being shot with a shotgun? Seems like those who would have guns
for defense would be more skilled with them.

Yeah, it does seem that way. But Life gets in the way, and most
honest gun owners who aren't also gun fanatics do not get to the
practice range nearly as often as they should. The only reason that
the Cops do is because they have the time scheduled.

Even after that, I know of no place where a regular civilian can
easily go to get some realistic simulator or "Hogan's Alley" live-fire
range training - and every Pawnshop and Convenience Store employee
across the country needs to do something like that at least once a
year, and get to a practice range and run through 50 rounds or so
roughly every three months.

To be really effective with any weapon you have to get practice in
while you've got your adrenaline up, and force yourself to make those
"Shoot or No Shoot" decisions under realistic pressure. Last I heard,
most urban police departments don't want to see you at their gun range
unless you carry a badge.

Failing that, if both sides haven't practiced recently you can have
a gun battle with 20, 30, or more shots fired - and the combatants
missing each other totally, or one party only getting winged.

When the crook is holding the weapon sideways 'Gangsta Style',
that's a pretty good clue that they have no real experience. The
safest place to hide in that case would be behind the target - he
ain't gonna get a round anywhere near it except through sheer luck.

-- Bruce --

In article ,
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

When the crook is holding the weapon sideways 'Gangsta Style',
that's a pretty good clue that they have no real experience. The
safest place to hide in that case would be behind the target - he
ain't gonna get a round anywhere near it except through sheer luck.

Actually, based on my observations, those using the "gangsta grip" are
best avoided by ducking to the side that the butt of the gun points at.
Damn near everything they fire is going to go wide to the opposite side.

So if you've got somebody pointing at you with the gangsta-approved
"rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise" (from his view) grip, you want to
dodge to your left, 'cause everything he throws at you after the first
shot is going to go wide to your right. The first shot will, too, just
not as far as the followup shots do.

Then you've got the folks like me that just plain don't believe in
screwing around with that "one chunk of lead per shot" baloney... A 12
gauge riot-gun sporting a cylinder choke and loaded with 00-buck tends
to stop pretty much anything it points at inside of 20 yards, and does a
fair job out to at least 40 or 50. Add the "7 more where that came from
just as fast as I can jack the pump and squeeze the trigger" factor, and
I figure I'm fairly well set for dealing with any "goblin incursion"
that isn't a small army.

Show me a critter smaller than a grizzly bear that'll keep coming after
taking a load of double-ought to center of mass at close range, and I'll
show you a critter wearing Class II or better body armor... Not exactly
"typical bad guy" gear.

--
Don Bruder - - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd for more info

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:43:33 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:04:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Two guys shot in the leg, one in the foot and one that fled after
being shot with a shotgun? Seems like those who would have guns
for defense would be more skilled with them.

Yeah, it does seem that way. But Life gets in the way, and most
honest gun owners who aren't also gun fanatics do not get to the
practice range nearly as often as they should. The only reason that
the Cops do is because they have the time scheduled.

Even after that, I know of no place where a regular civilian can
easily go to get some realistic simulator or "Hogan's Alley" live-fire
range training - and every Pawnshop and Convenience Store employee
across the country needs to do something like that at least once a
year, and get to a practice range and run through 50 rounds or so
roughly every three months.

To be really effective with any weapon you have to get practice in
while you've got your adrenaline up, and force yourself to make those
"Shoot or No Shoot" decisions under realistic pressure. Last I heard,
most urban police departments don't want to see you at their gun range
unless you carry a badge.

Failing that, if both sides haven't practiced recently you can have
a gun battle with 20, 30, or more shots fired - and the combatants
missing each other totally, or one party only getting winged.

When the crook is holding the weapon sideways 'Gangsta Style',
that's a pretty good clue that they have no real experience. The
safest place to hide in that case would be behind the target - he
ain't gonna get a round anywhere near it except through sheer luck.

-- Bruce --

I don't see why a civilian should need "Hogan's Alley" training.
Civilians are not cops, HRT or Delta Force. Civilians can and
must have a tactical plan for their homes so they'll know where the
friendlies, i.e. others in the household including children, are and
aren't. Not where they should be, where they actually are and
aren't when you're squeezing to pop a cap.

Engaging in gunfights is not something civilians do, by definition.
One who entertains the idea of engaging in gunfights is not a
civilian.

It doesn't matter how an assailant hold his weapon, crosswise or
upside down. Once a weapon is in evidence then a civilian is free
to deliver stopping fire to center of mass if he or she has the
proficiency to do so. Doing that will surely be very costly, so the
alternative of not doing it must be clearly unacceptable and worth the
cost to avoid imminent harm.

Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.

That is not to say that a civilian should not be proficient. If I
were to be an armed civilian, I would think that 50 rounds every 3
months would be far short of sufficient. I'd opine that one should
spend as much on ammo and training as on first cost of a handgun, at
least 500 rounds for openers. I'd think that ability to deliver 12
round of rapid fire into center of mass at 21 feet would be minimal
proficiency for stopping an attack upon a civilian.

I'd also note that while military experience may be useful for
safety training and some tactical matters, training as a civilian
is essential because the rules of engagement are very different and
vary significantly with location.

My opinion, YMMV.

Don Foreman wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:43:33 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:04:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Two guys shot in the leg, one in the foot and one that fled after
being shot with a shotgun? Seems like those who would have guns
for defense would be more skilled with them.

Yeah, it does seem that way. But Life gets in the way, and most
honest gun owners who aren't also gun fanatics do not get to the
practice range nearly as often as they should. The only reason that
the Cops do is because they have the time scheduled.

Even after that, I know of no place where a regular civilian can
easily go to get some realistic simulator or "Hogan's Alley" live-fire
range training - and every Pawnshop and Convenience Store employee
across the country needs to do something like that at least once a
year, and get to a practice range and run through 50 rounds or so
roughly every three months.

To be really effective with any weapon you have to get practice in
while you've got your adrenaline up, and force yourself to make those
"Shoot or No Shoot" decisions under realistic pressure. Last I heard,
most urban police departments don't want to see you at their gun range
unless you carry a badge.

Failing that, if both sides haven't practiced recently you can have
a gun battle with 20, 30, or more shots fired - and the combatants
missing each other totally, or one party only getting winged.

When the crook is holding the weapon sideways 'Gangsta Style',
that's a pretty good clue that they have no real experience. The
safest place to hide in that case would be behind the target - he
ain't gonna get a round anywhere near it except through sheer luck.

-- Bruce --

I don't see why a civilian should need "Hogan's Alley" training.
Civilians are not cops, HRT or Delta Force. Civilians can and
must have a tactical plan for their homes so they'll know where the
friendlies, i.e. others in the household including children, are and
aren't. Not where they should be, where they actually are and
aren't when you're squeezing to pop a cap.

Engaging in gunfights is not something civilians do, by definition.
One who entertains the idea of engaging in gunfights is not a
civilian.

It doesn't matter how an assailant hold his weapon, crosswise or
upside down. Once a weapon is in evidence then a civilian is free
to deliver stopping fire to center of mass if he or she has the
proficiency to do so. Doing that will surely be very costly, so the
alternative of not doing it must be clearly unacceptable and worth the
cost to avoid imminent harm.

Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.

That is not to say that a civilian should not be proficient. If I
were to be an armed civilian, I would think that 50 rounds every 3
months would be far short of sufficient. I'd opine that one should
spend as much on ammo and training as on first cost of a handgun, at
least 500 rounds for openers. I'd think that ability to deliver 12
round of rapid fire into center of mass at 21 feet would be minimal
proficiency for stopping an attack upon a civilian.

I'd also note that while military experience may be useful for
safety training and some tactical matters, training as a civilian
is essential because the rules of engagement are very different and
vary significantly with location.

My opinion, YMMV.

For what ever it might be worth, Don, I throughly agree.

Richard

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Gunner


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:


I don't see why a civilian should need "Hogan's Alley" training.
Civilians are not cops, HRT or Delta Force. Civilians can and
must have a tactical plan for their homes so they'll know where the
friendlies, i.e. others in the household including children, are and
aren't. Not where they should be, where they actually are and
aren't when you're squeezing to pop a cap.

Not jumping on your case, Don, but,

Pet Peeve Announcement #1:

Cops _are_not_ military: They are civilian hired help.


Engaging in gunfights is not something civilians do, by definition.
One who entertains the idea of engaging in gunfights is not a
civilian.

It doesn't matter how an assailant hold his weapon, crosswise or
upside down. Once a weapon is in evidence then a civilian is free
to deliver stopping fire to center of mass if he or she has the
proficiency to do so. Doing that will surely be very costly, so the
alternative of not doing it must be clearly unacceptable and worth the
cost to avoid imminent harm.

Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.

PPA #2: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


That is not to say that a civilian should not be proficient. If I
were to be an armed civilian, I would think that 50 rounds every 3
months would be far short of sufficient. I'd opine that one should
spend as much on ammo and training as on first cost of a handgun, at
least 500 rounds for openers. I'd think that ability to deliver 12
round of rapid fire into center of mass at 21 feet would be minimal
proficiency for stopping an attack upon a civilian.

PPA #3: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


I'd also note that while military experience may be useful for
safety training and some tactical matters, training as a civilian
is essential because the rules of engagement are very different and
vary significantly with location.

PPA #4: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


My opinion, YMMV.

Same here.

I don't consider anyone not immediately under the UCMJ by current active
commission or current active enlistment to be anything but a civilian.

This current pseudo-militarization of the police is a dangerous
precedent and fosters an us/them dichotomy among equals. Cops are just
hired help, like all civil serpents.

They may be valuable hired help: They may be brave hired help: They may
be self-sacrificing hired help. But they are still just hired help
without separation from the rest of the civilian population.

--
Bring back, Oh bring back
Oh, bring back that old continuity.
Bring back, oh, bring back
Oh, bring back Clerk Maxwell to me.

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

If they were felons or potential felons, they most likely would have
voted Demoncrap. That would make em wingers alright. Left-winger
lib-tards.

Guess it's time to drop Cliff back in to old commie-kill-file for a
little while:

pinko

Till

On 27 Apr 2006 05:57:21 -0700, "tillius" wrote:

If they were felons or potential felons, they most likely would have
voted Demoncrap. That would make em wingers alright. Left-winger
lib-tards.

I'd guess most in the US jails voted the other way .. or would.
Not many are very bright (my general impression, anyway).

Think about it ... bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Abramoff,
DeLay, Ellis, Frist, Rove, Cunningham, Reed, Wyly, Noe, Kjellander,
Tobin, Wilkes, Safavian, Allbaugh, Brown, Fletcher,Taft, ........
--
Cliff

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:15:53 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

In article ,
Don Foreman wrote:


I don't see why a civilian should need "Hogan's Alley" training.
Civilians are not cops, HRT or Delta Force. Civilians can and
must have a tactical plan for their homes so they'll know where the
friendlies, i.e. others in the household including children, are and
aren't. Not where they should be, where they actually are and
aren't when you're squeezing to pop a cap.

Not jumping on your case, Don, but,

Pet Peeve Announcement #1:

Cops _are_not_ military: They are civilian hired help.


Engaging in gunfights is not something civilians do, by definition.
One who entertains the idea of engaging in gunfights is not a
civilian.

It doesn't matter how an assailant hold his weapon, crosswise or
upside down. Once a weapon is in evidence then a civilian is free
to deliver stopping fire to center of mass if he or she has the
proficiency to do so. Doing that will surely be very costly, so the
alternative of not doing it must be clearly unacceptable and worth the
cost to avoid imminent harm.

Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.

PPA #2: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


That is not to say that a civilian should not be proficient. If I
were to be an armed civilian, I would think that 50 rounds every 3
months would be far short of sufficient. I'd opine that one should
spend as much on ammo and training as on first cost of a handgun, at
least 500 rounds for openers. I'd think that ability to deliver 12
round of rapid fire into center of mass at 21 feet would be minimal
proficiency for stopping an attack upon a civilian.

PPA #3: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


I'd also note that while military experience may be useful for
safety training and some tactical matters, training as a civilian
is essential because the rules of engagement are very different and
vary significantly with location.

PPA #4: Cops _are_ civilian hired help.


My opinion, YMMV.

Same here.

I don't consider anyone not immediately under the UCMJ by current active
commission or current active enlistment to be anything but a civilian.

This current pseudo-militarization of the police is a dangerous
precedent and fosters an us/them dichotomy among equals. Cops are just
hired help, like all civil serpents.

They may be valuable hired help: They may be brave hired help: They may
be self-sacrificing hired help. But they are still just hired help
without separation from the rest of the civilian population.

They are different in that they have a sworn duty to preserve, protect
and enforce the law, with rules of engagement slightly different
than those for other civilians. The danger lies when they forget that
they are civil servants with clearly limited authority.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.

Well Don, you're a smart fella ok, but:

A cop's job is to protect us and to stop lawbreakers, using such force
as is necessary.

tells me you haven't thought this through. I'd suggest you don't hold
your breath while you wait for the police to "protect" you in
situations where a civilian shootout (with yourself involved) is about
to happen. The police have made it very clear this is NOT their
responsibility and that they bear no legal onus for not doing so.
Their job and responsibility is to investigate the crime and to
apprehend the perp.

If this type of situation should arise it's YOUR responsibility to
protect yourself and your loved ones either at home or in public. You
can not and should not depend on police for personal protection.

dennis
in nca

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:30:04 GMT, "J. Francis" wrote:

Cliff wrote:

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim
during a hold-up in Long Beach, California,

returned with his vehicle to find a woman had taken
the space. Understandably, he shot her.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the
counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer,
the man pulled a gun

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a
Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun,

See the common theme? Crook uses firearm in the commission of a crime
and... unarmed victims get shot.

*sigh*

What a resounding testimony to the fact that gun control is a miserable
failure,

Too many people got guns?

and the truth about victims having a much higher chance of
surviving an encounter with a violent aggressor if they themselves are
armed.

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

Thanks Cliff. Seriously. I know it was unintended, but your failure to
think through what you were posting is appreciated none the less. :-)

You think a firefight would have helped?
Stuff is funny that is rare.
This was about more stupid armed wingers.
BTW, Where did they get the guns? Steal them from someone
else with an NRA sticker on their door?
--
Cliff

The get rid of guns to make the world safe argument would be a good one
except for the impossibility of doing so. No matter what the laws or how
hard anyone tries there are always going to be guns available. Whether it's
guns from Virginia getting into NY or DC or guns getting into Mexico from
the US, or guns getting into Great Britain from Europe, there will always be
guns that get into where ever they are banned. Given this fact, the argument
of outlawing firearms simply doesn't hold water.

Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on the
weak. Getting rid of guns will only make life easier for bullies. Since this
is the case the only rational thing to do is to allow law abiding citizens
the right to use firearms to protect themselves and their property. Nothing
else is going to work. All you have to do is look at the Sudan and you can
see what happens to people that can't protect themselves. They have no guns.
I feel sorry for them. The bad guys do have guns. The solution to the
problem is easy. Give the victims guns. Nothing else is going to help them.
It's the same everywhere. It may not be nice but that is the reality you
have to deal with.

Hawke

On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.

Well Don, you're a smart fella ok, but:

A cop's job is to protect us and to stop lawbreakers, using such force
as is necessary.

tells me you haven't thought this through. I'd suggest you don't hold
your breath while you wait for the police to "protect" you in
situations where a civilian shootout (with yourself involved) is about
to happen. The police have made it very clear this is NOT their
responsibility and that they bear no legal onus for not doing so.
Their job and responsibility is to investigate the crime and to
apprehend the perp.

If this type of situation should arise it's YOUR responsibility to
protect yourself and your loved ones either at home or in public. You
can not and should not depend on police for personal protection.

dennis
in nca

Perhaps nca cops cop out as you say. Legal onus or not, the cops in
these parts do seem to take the "protect and serve" logo painted on
the cop cars seriously, and my observation has been that they're good
at it. I was quite impressed with the quiet tactics of cops that
appeared in my back yard within 2 minutes of a 911 call reporting an
intruder. No flashing lights or sirens, just figures materializing
in the near-dark, some with flashlights and some more stealthy. I
saw good tactics in the nautical twilight. They collected the guy and
transported him away.

I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

The get rid of guns to make the world safe argument would be a good one
except for the impossibility of doing so. No matter what the laws or how
hard anyone tries there are always going to be guns available. Whether it's
guns from Virginia getting into NY or DC or guns getting into Mexico from
the US, or guns getting into Great Britain from Europe, there will always be
guns that get into where ever they are banned. Given this fact, the argument
of outlawing firearms simply doesn't hold water.

Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on the
weak.

Check the actual numbers.
Deaths via knives, blunt objects, poison, etc. compare in Canada,
the UK, Japan, etc. with those in the US.
Deaths by gunfire in the US are *extra* deaths.

And almost all have been trying to put words in my mouth VBG.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Getting rid of guns will only make life easier for bullies. Since this
is the case the only rational thing to do is to allow law abiding citizens
the right to use firearms to protect themselves and their property. Nothing
else is going to work.

You get rich every day buying government lottery tickets, right?
Buy them all & be a sure winner.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

All you have to do is look at the Sudan and you can
see what happens to people that can't protect themselves. They have no guns.
I feel sorry for them. The bad guys do have guns. The solution to the
problem is easy. Give the victims guns. Nothing else is going to help them.
It's the same everywhere. It may not be nice but that is the reality you
have to deal with.

Who has the biggest guns? Is best trained?
I can just see poor gunner vs. the nuke ....
A civil war helps little. Food, water, rain, .... those might help.
--
Cliff

Don Foreman wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.

Well Don, you're a smart fella ok, but:

A cop's job is to protect us and to stop lawbreakers, using such force
as is necessary.

tells me you haven't thought this through. I'd suggest you don't hold
your breath while you wait for the police to "protect" you in
situations where a civilian shootout (with yourself involved) is about
to happen. The police have made it very clear this is NOT their
responsibility and that they bear no legal onus for not doing so.
Their job and responsibility is to investigate the crime and to
apprehend the perp.

If this type of situation should arise it's YOUR responsibility to
protect yourself and your loved ones either at home or in public. You
can not and should not depend on police for personal protection.

dennis
in nca

Perhaps nca cops cop out as you say. Legal onus or not, the cops in
these parts do seem to take the "protect and serve" logo painted on
the cop cars seriously, and my observation has been that they're good
at it. I was quite impressed with the quiet tactics of cops that
appeared in my back yard within 2 minutes of a 911 call reporting an
intruder. No flashing lights or sirens, just figures materializing
in the near-dark, some with flashlights and some more stealthy. I
saw good tactics in the nautical twilight. They collected the guy and
transported him away.

I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

Sorry Don, I guess I didn't make my statement clear enough. Please
allow me to restate:

It's been legally affirmed (not just in nca but around the country)
that if you, or a family member, is injured by a criminal in an
assault, you have no legal recourse against the police for not
protecting you. The cites are there if you need to look them up.

This means, since the police can not be at your elbow 24 hours a day,
that the responsibility for your personal protection belongs to you.
If you wish to be unarmed and trust in a criminal to do "the right
thing" and only rob and not further harm you or yours that is your
right. On the other hand a crime was just described on TV where, after
being robbed, the victims were killed to provide a "kick" for the
killer. Maybe you would be the lucky one? Maybe you don't believe
there are actually people out there who would do such a thing (and
similar ugly acts) to you or your family? If so please shake the sand
out of your ears and look around.

dennis
in nca

Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Getting rid of guns will only make life easier for bullies. Since this
is the case the only rational thing to do is to allow law abiding citizens
the right to use firearms to protect themselves and their property. Nothing
else is going to work.

You get rich every day buying government lottery tickets, right?
Buy them all & be a sure winner.
--
Cliff

Hi Cliff: Running out of time needed to give anything but glib
answers? The problem is this liberal viewpoint is created without
examining the entire situation and giving people their due respect.
It's easy to totally ignore the people who report their personal
environment would be safer with their ownership of defensive weapons,
but this doesn't solve the situation.

Do-gooders created prohibition using good intentions and what did it
get us: A larger criminal element by criminalizing the average citizen.
The average citizen (and civil servant) knew this was an unjust law
and many rebelled against it and learned about flaunting the law in the
process. Now you suggest doing the same thing again; as if we didn't
have enough troubles already.

Makes me wonder why the Dems have their collective heads up their
collective asses on this issue. I mean, why alienate voters at this
stage of the game instead of trying to work out acceptable
alternatives?

dennis
in nca

On 28 Apr 2006 09:06:59 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Getting rid of guns will only make life easier for bullies. Since this
is the case the only rational thing to do is to allow law abiding citizens
the right to use firearms to protect themselves and their property. Nothing
else is going to work.

You get rich every day buying government lottery tickets, right?
Buy them all & be a sure winner.
--
Cliff

Hi Cliff: Running out of time needed to give anything but glib
answers? The problem is this liberal viewpoint is created without
examining the entire situation

Like those ~ 8 to 1 odds *against* those with guns?

and giving people their due respect.

For not thinking?

It's easy to totally ignore the people who report their personal
environment would be safer with their ownership of defensive weapons,
but this doesn't solve the situation.

It's easy to jump to the wrong conclusions just because somebody
won a bit on one lottery ticket. IF you don't think.
Read the odds. Calculate the house percentage.
Usually the"winners" as a group get about $1 in $8 spent
(by all) back. Then they pay taxes ...

Do-gooders created prohibition using good intentions and what did it
get us: A larger criminal element by criminalizing the average citizen.

Why are they criminals? Why do they want to be?

The average citizen (and civil servant) knew this was an unjust law

What specific "law" might this be?

and many rebelled against it and learned about flaunting the law in the
process.

??

Now you suggest doing the same thing again; as if we didn't
have enough troubles already.

How many dead?

Makes me wonder why the Dems have their collective heads up their
collective asses on this issue.

??

I mean, why alienate voters

http://tinyurl.com/6e2d3

at this stage of the game instead of trying to work out acceptable
alternatives?

??

dennis
in nca
--
Cliff

On 28 Apr 2006 08:49:44 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.


Tell that to the criminals that put you in a gun fight.

Sigh.

The difference is that cops (even if hired hep) and soldiers are
expected to confront and enagage as a matter of sworn duty. A
soldier's job is to kill the enemy. A cop's job is to protect us and
to stop lawbreakers, using such force as is necessary. Civilians are
legally prohibited from taking armed initiative; they may only
defend themselves against clear and present grave mortal danger. I
differentiate cops from civilians only because cops have slightly
different rules of engagement e.g. they may fire to protect others.

A civilian who might find himself in a situation where avoidance of
such a situation is not possible should be proficient enough to
have some chance of surviving it without injuring non-participants.
Simply owning a gun is not nearly enough.

I don't recall if one of your rules for gunfights was to avoid them
when at all possible, but I'm pretty sure one of them was something
like: "if it can't be avoided, get it over with as quickly as
possible."

One good way to avoid finding oneself in such a situation is to avoid
venues where that is likely. Some can't do that because of where they
live or work, but most of us can most of the time.

I support the notion that civilians should retain the right to be
armed if they choose to be. I think advocates could do a lot better
job of pointing out that choosing to be armed carries the
responsibility of gaining and maintaining proficiency, responsible
safety practice, and knowledge of applicable law.

Well Don, you're a smart fella ok, but:

A cop's job is to protect us and to stop lawbreakers, using such force
as is necessary.

tells me you haven't thought this through. I'd suggest you don't hold
your breath while you wait for the police to "protect" you in
situations where a civilian shootout (with yourself involved) is about
to happen. The police have made it very clear this is NOT their
responsibility and that they bear no legal onus for not doing so.
Their job and responsibility is to investigate the crime and to
apprehend the perp.

If this type of situation should arise it's YOUR responsibility to
protect yourself and your loved ones either at home or in public. You
can not and should not depend on police for personal protection.

dennis
in nca

Perhaps nca cops cop out as you say. Legal onus or not, the cops in
these parts do seem to take the "protect and serve" logo painted on
the cop cars seriously, and my observation has been that they're good
at it. I was quite impressed with the quiet tactics of cops that
appeared in my back yard within 2 minutes of a 911 call reporting an
intruder. No flashing lights or sirens, just figures materializing
in the near-dark, some with flashlights and some more stealthy. I
saw good tactics in the nautical twilight. They collected the guy and
transported him away.

I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

Sorry Don, I guess I didn't make my statement clear enough. Please
allow me to restate:

It's been legally affirmed (not just in nca but around the country)
that if you, or a family member, is injured by a criminal in an
assault, you have no legal recourse against the police for not
protecting you. The cites are there if you need to look them up.

This means, since the police can not be at your elbow 24 hours a day,
that the responsibility for your personal protection belongs to you.
If you wish to be unarmed and trust in a criminal to do "the right
thing" and only rob and not further harm you or yours that is your
right. On the other hand a crime was just described on TV where, after
being robbed, the victims were killed to provide a "kick" for the
killer. Maybe you would be the lucky one? Maybe you don't believe
there are actually people out there who would do such a thing (and
similar ugly acts) to you or your family? If so please shake the sand
out of your ears and look around.

dennis
in nca

That does clarify things. It is certainly true that the cops can't be
everywhere at once, and I agree that bad things don't just happen on
TV. There have been a couple of incidents in Minneapolis in the
past few weeks where the victims were innocents -- not gangstas.

My original point was not to either encourage or discourage folks from
being armed. That's a personal choice, pick yer pony and take yer
ride. My point is that I feel strongly that those who do choose to
be armed should have and maintain enough training and proficiency to
have and use arms legally, safely, responsibly, and effectively if
necessary. The likelihood of a prolonged "shootout" (and collateral
casualties) is greatly reduced when at least one participant has some
degree of proficiency.

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.

In article , Don Foreman says...

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.

It's also not clear that a handgun is the tool of choice to keep
around the house.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Don Foreman wrote:

On 28 Apr 2006 08:49:44 -0700, "rigger" wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 10:00:29 -0700, "rigger" wrote:


Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:04:54 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:35:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.



some snippage


I may be fortunate to live in a blue-collar community where the cops
do seem to want to do the job and are obviously competent, YMMV.
Triage always applies.

Sorry Don, I guess I didn't make my statement clear enough. Please
allow me to restate:

It's been legally affirmed (not just in nca but around the country)
that if you, or a family member, is injured by a criminal in an
assault, you have no legal recourse against the police for not
protecting you. The cites are there if you need to look them up.

This means, since the police can not be at your elbow 24 hours a day,
that the responsibility for your personal protection belongs to you.
If you wish to be unarmed and trust in a criminal to do "the right
thing" and only rob and not further harm you or yours that is your
right. On the other hand a crime was just described on TV where, after
being robbed, the victims were killed to provide a "kick" for the
killer. Maybe you would be the lucky one? Maybe you don't believe
there are actually people out there who would do such a thing (and
similar ugly acts) to you or your family? If so please shake the sand
out of your ears and look around.

dennis
in nca

That does clarify things. It is certainly true that the cops can't be
everywhere at once, and I agree that bad things don't just happen on
TV. There have been a couple of incidents in Minneapolis in the
past few weeks where the victims were innocents -- not gangstas.

My original point was not to either encourage or discourage folks from
being armed. That's a personal choice, pick yer pony and take yer
ride. My point is that I feel strongly that those who do choose to
be armed should have and maintain enough training and proficiency to
have and use arms legally, safely, responsibly, and effectively if
necessary. The likelihood of a prolonged "shootout" (and collateral
casualties) is greatly reduced when at least one participant has some
degree of proficiency.

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.

You don't need a carry permit to keep a gun at home.(Texas)
You do need one to have a piece on your person in public.

In the car is a gray area.
Locked up in a case in the trunk and can't find the key is one thing.
Loaded, stuffed under the seat is a whole nother
(better have the permit).

The premit itself insures a certain level of compitence, since it has
to be renewed perodically.

As a side, IMHO, the M1911 is a fine combat piece, but would not
be on my short list for personal carry. To big, too bulky, loo loud(!).

That one would stay at home.

On 28 Apr 2006 12:33:06 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Don Foreman says...

I am a military veteran. My assigned weapon 40 years ago was the
M1911 .45 pistol -- but that was 40 years ago. Were I to choose to
be armed now, I would get some good training and I would figure on
500 to 1000 rounds of practice for openers. Good training is
probably easier to find in some areas than others. It is very easy to
find in Minnesota, just ask at any gunshop including the bigbox
sportinggoods stores. In MN, taking and passing a certified
training course including a proficiency test (50 rounds) is required
for issue of a carry permit. Most of us don't need a carry permit,
but I think anyone who would keep a handgun needs the training and
the proficiency.

It's also not clear that a handgun is the tool of choice to keep
around the house.

Jim

Right. Situations differ a lot.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:41:57 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote:


You don't need a carry permit to keep a gun at home.(Texas)
You do need one to have a piece on your person in public.

In the car is a gray area.
Locked up in a case in the trunk and can't find the key is one thing.
Loaded, stuffed under the seat is a whole nother
(better have the permit).

The law is quite clear, up to the owner to know what the law is
in a given locale.

The premit itself insures a certain level of compitence, since it has
to be renewed perodically.

As a side, IMHO, the M1911 is a fine combat piece, but would not
be on my short list for personal carry. To big, too bulky, loo loud(!).

That one would stay at home.

It wouldn't be on my list period. I know that it is too big for me
to shoot well. The recoil and noise aren't issues, it's just too
big to fit my hand.

In article , Don Foreman says...

It's also not clear that a handgun is the tool of choice to keep
around the house.

Right. Situations differ a lot.

It takes a *lot* of practice to hit anything. To put this in pespective,
at the range where I shoot, the cops have their targets at 25 feet.

The closest targets after that are 25 yards, then 50 yards. The
general public typically shoots at the 50 yard targets. I would
much rather have on of the regulars there on my side, than one of
the local constabulary, seeing how they shoot, and the errors they
make.

The cops just don't shoot enough to be halfway proficient, at best
they can avoid being a danger to themselves IMO.

Oooh. I could tell ya *blood*curdling stories....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 05:39:26 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Which is why store clerks & bank tellers are so heavily armed, right?

So why don't we see a great many armed robberies occuring in gun shops
and shooting ranges? Lots of cash tied up in that hardware...should
be well worth the effort... Could there be a negative feedback system
that results in the absence of this sort of robbery?

Retief

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:20:21 -0400, Cliff wrote:

How odd then that where there are fewer guns there are fewer gun
deaths. There should be more, right?

You mean places like Washington DC! Yes, it is impressive that the
murder rate in this city, which is under the control of Congress and
has an absolute ban on firearms, has a murder rate several times the
national average (even beating out Detroit).

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

How nice of you to decide who should live and who should die, Cliff...

http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

Sieg Heil!

http://www.jpfo.org/jp1.gif


Retief

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:55:51 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Like those ~ 8 to 1 odds *against* those with guns?

So a black person is 8 times more likely to be killed if they use a
gun to resist KKK members like yourself, than if they don't?

Yes Cliff, those gun control laws that you are so proud of were
designed to prevent blacks from purchasing firearms, with which they
could protect themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_law

And while you're reviewing history, be sure to look up the source of
the phase "Saturday Night Special", you racist troll...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

"History of prohibition attempts"

"The earliest law prohibiting inexpensive handguns were enacted in
Tennessee, in the form of the "Army and Navy" law, passed in 1879,
shortly after the 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act; previous laws
had stated that black freedmen could not own or carry any manner of
firearm. The Army and Navy law prohibited the sale of "belt or pocket
pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or
navy pistols," which were prohibitively expensive for black freedmen
and poor whites to purchase.[16]"

Do-gooders created prohibition using good intentions and what did it
get us: A larger criminal element by criminalizing the average citizen.

Why are they criminals? Why do they want to be?

So they want to be criminals, because you criminalized their firearm
ownership? If we criminalize the bearing of the name Cliff, and you
refuse to change your name, then you have admitted that you WANT to be
a criminal.

I'm sure that MLK would agree with your assessment of civil
disobedience...

Retief

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:09:01 -0400, Cliff wrote:

Check the actual numbers.
Deaths via knives, blunt objects, poison, etc. compare in Canada,
the UK, Japan, etc. with those in the US.

BFD... Are you implying that the US is culturally the same as, say,
Japan?

And how many murders did the Japanese commit in China, anyway?

Retief

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

The get rid of guns to make the world safe argument would be a good one
except for the impossibility of doing so. No matter what the laws or how
hard anyone tries there are always going to be guns available. Whether
it's
guns from Virginia getting into NY or DC or guns getting into Mexico from
the US, or guns getting into Great Britain from Europe, there will always
be
guns that get into where ever they are banned. Given this fact, the
argument
of outlawing firearms simply doesn't hold water.

Then add the fact that if there were no guns whatsoever violent people
would
simply use knives, clubs, fists, and other available weapons to prey on
the
weak.

Check the actual numbers.
Deaths via knives, blunt objects, poison, etc. compare in Canada,
the UK, Japan, etc. with those in the US.
Deaths by gunfire in the US are *extra* deaths.

And almost all have been trying to put words in my mouth VBG.
--
Cliff

Some folks can't make an argument so they have to put words in your mouth
G. But I do know the statistics and you can't make a valid comparison with
the US and those countries you mentioned for several reasons. For example,
if guns were freely available in Japan and Canada the death rate by guns
would still be very low. It isn't the fact that they don't have guns to do
violence. It's the fact that they don't do violence very often whether they
have guns or not. Americans are a violent people, especially the lower
classes, so whether they have guns or not they will commit violent crimes.
It's like Rwanda. They only had machetes; that didn't stop them from being
horribly violent, did it? No, it's not the guns it's the people wielding
them.

One other thing about the statistics on gun violence in America, they treat
suicides and gangbangers killing each other like every other act of gun
violence, they're not the same thing. When you look at the statistics
carefully you will find that even in the US gun violence is not that bad. If
you take away the poor killing each other it hardly exists. But if you want
to see what happens when the guns are taken away look at Jamaica. They
disarmed the public there and guess what, only outlaws had guns, and of
course, they abused the helpless public. It's all about human nature. It
never changes so outlawing a tool will not make any difference in the long
run, and all a gun is is a tool.

Hawke

"rigger" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:38:00 -0700, "Hawke" wrote:

Getting rid of guns will only make life easier for bullies. Since this
is the case the only rational thing to do is to allow law abiding
citizens
the right to use firearms to protect themselves and their property.
Nothing
else is going to work.

You get rich every day buying government lottery tickets, right?
Buy them all & be a sure winner.
--
Cliff

Hi Cliff: Running out of time needed to give anything but glib
answers? The problem is this liberal viewpoint is created without
examining the entire situation and giving people their due respect.
It's easy to totally ignore the people who report their personal
environment would be safer with their ownership of defensive weapons,
but this doesn't solve the situation.

Do-gooders created prohibition using good intentions and what did it
get us: A larger criminal element by criminalizing the average citizen.
The average citizen (and civil servant) knew this was an unjust law
and many rebelled against it and learned about flaunting the law in the
process. Now you suggest doing the same thing again; as if we didn't
have enough troubles already.

Makes me wonder why the Dems have their collective heads up their
collective asses on this issue. I mean, why alienate voters at this
stage of the game instead of trying to work out acceptable
alternatives?

The Democrats just kill me. It's almost as if they don't want to be in
power. Either that or they are just so stupid they can't figure it out. I
mean, all they would have to do to take over is to change their position on
two issues and they would rule. They need to take the right wing anti
immigrant position and they need to stop with the anti gun stuff. If they
only adopted the opposite view on those two issues they would be the
majority by a wide margin. As John Belushi used to say, but NOOOOO!, that
would make too much sense. So they will keep on the same path and get the
same lousy results. In my book that makes them just as dumb as the
republicans. No wonder things are so screwed up. We have to pick between
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. What a country!

Hawke