Ed Huntress wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote :

I wasn't arguing with you over the likelihood of an armed citizen
being able
to stop such an event. I'm just objecting to your egregiously,
absurdly false
claim that such dangers are confined to "the dangerous parts of our
most dangerous cities." Certainly they are more common there, but
manifestly they
are not *unique* there.

I didn't say they're confined there. I said that, except for such
dangerous places, it makes little sense statistically. And that's the
fact, too.

When we bought our modest home it was a nice , racially-mixed , middle
class , well-maintained neighborhood . Eighteen years later , we have crack
houses , prostitutes , gang bangers and violence .
I started carrying after the third time the gangs tried to whack me .
That's also when I stopped calling the cops . Economically speaking , it
would ruin me to leave . Seems property values have declined too .
BTW , the neighborhood perps all know I pack , all know I have well
trained dogs , and have seen some of my ridin' buddies . I get left alone
now ...
--

Snag aka OSG #1
'90 Ultra , "Strider"
The road goes on forever ...
none to one to reply

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:23:35 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
My point exactly: you *don't* have to be in the most dangerous parts of
the
most dangerous cities for stuff like that to happen.

Well, what are you arguing with? I said that it makes no sense
statistically. And then I showed you the numbers on your examples. If you're
living your life on one-in-a-million probabilities, Doug, you should be
investing heavily in the lottery.

According to the NSC, your chances of being killed in a firearm assault are
1:324. Your chances of dying from accidental poisoning are twice as high.
Your chances of dying from taking a fall are nearly twice as high as dying
in a firearm assault, and your chance of dying in a car accident are four
times as high.

You give odds of dying. Weren't we discussing odds of being assaulted?
And that wording is funky. If one isn't paying attention, they'd think
the odds were higher, not the chances of dying. You meant 1:162, not
1:648, for poisoning, right?


I don't feel the *need* to carry a gun for the same reason I don't feel the
*need* to hire someone to taste my food before eating, or to have myself
fitted with springs to prevent injury in a fall, or to have a NASCAR-type
roll cage installed in my family sedan.

Same here, but I keep one for those long odds.


Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:34:10 -0800, "William Noble" wrote:



it was under Regan, it was conservatives not liberals, and the "no new
taxes" arm of the conservative movement is a strong force in preventing
proper care for mentally ill, so we get to enjoy them as homeless folks
sleeping in doorways downtown - It is most assuredly a bit disingenuous, to
say the least, to blame this on "liberals", though I know that many use the
word "liberal" for any person with whom they disagree. Of course, that not
only prevents communication on issues, but it corrupts the language, we have
already lost the use of the words Christian and Patriot - both now carry
heavily loaded political meanings that neither carried a decade ago - and
both of the overlaid meanings are abhorrent to me at least.

So, please, if you are going to argue politics instead of discussing metal
working, at least make a small attempt to steer towards objectivity and
leave the slathering invective to other venues.

That's good advice. I'll do my best to follow it and I hope that I can follow
it better than you. :-)

Reagan instituted some poor policies, but releasing crazy people isn't
one of them. Edmund G (Pat) Brown Sr. (Democrat) is the California
governor that started the policy of getting crazy people out of
institutions. The policy continues to this day, AFAIK.

From Edmund G Brown's 1963 inaugural address (Reagan was elected in 1967)
at http://www.californiagovernors.ca.gov/h/documents/inaugural_32b.html:

"I ask you today to extend the programs under which we have reduced
the number of mentally ill in our hospitals and increased the number
of patients who are able to live useful productive lives in their
own communities."

From the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDB1239F933A05753C1A9629482 60&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

"In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental
hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was
Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office
in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that
of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now
expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately
evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he
said in an interview."

Edmund G Brown Jr, AKA Jerry Brown, AKA Governor Moonbeam, is
quite far to the left.

Google the 1957 Short-Doyle Act, passed a whole decade
before Reagan was elected, for more information.

It wasn't until 1967 until the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
was passed to, among other things, "end the inappropriate,
indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally
disordered persons, ...."; a Liberal point of view if there
ever was one. That act is where the term 51-50 (for section
5150) comes from for someone who is raving and crazy.

The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act was shepherded into law by Jesse "Money
is the mother's milk of politics" Unruh, the then Democratic
Speaker of the House. Jesse Unruh was behind several civil
rights bills in those days. NB. In California, the
Speaker has as least as much power as the governor and the
governor usually seems to lose when there is a conflict between
the two.

Bob S

"Snag" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote :

I wasn't arguing with you over the likelihood of an armed citizen
being able
to stop such an event. I'm just objecting to your egregiously,
absurdly false
claim that such dangers are confined to "the dangerous parts of our
most dangerous cities." Certainly they are more common there, but
manifestly they
are not *unique* there.

I didn't say they're confined there. I said that, except for such
dangerous places, it makes little sense statistically. And that's the
fact, too.

When we bought our modest home it was a nice , racially-mixed , middle
class , well-maintained neighborhood . Eighteen years later , we have
crack houses , prostitutes , gang bangers and violence .
I started carrying after the third time the gangs tried to whack me .
That's also when I stopped calling the cops . Economically speaking , it
would ruin me to leave . Seems property values have declined too .
BTW , the neighborhood perps all know I pack , all know I have well
trained dogs , and have seen some of my ridin' buddies . I get left alone
now ...
--

Yeah, Memphis has a violent crime rate that's 60% higher than that of
Newark, NJ. I'd say you live in one major crime hotspot. And every city of
any size, like Memphis, that has a citywide crime rate that high also has
neighborhoods that are virtual shooting galleries.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:29:50 -0600, "David Courtney"
wrote:

That's funny!
The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of gunshots
in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their handgun
ban).
I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at the
Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice:
http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp
All night long... pop, pop, pop.

QED. The situation in D.C. is a disgrace to our country. It is not
an example of how things are in the USA.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:23:35 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
My point exactly: you *don't* have to be in the most dangerous parts of
the
most dangerous cities for stuff like that to happen.

Well, what are you arguing with? I said that it makes no sense
statistically. And then I showed you the numbers on your examples. If
you're
living your life on one-in-a-million probabilities, Doug, you should be
investing heavily in the lottery.

According to the NSC, your chances of being killed in a firearm assault
are
1:324. Your chances of dying from accidental poisoning are twice as high.
Your chances of dying from taking a fall are nearly twice as high as dying
in a firearm assault, and your chance of dying in a car accident are four
times as high.

You give odds of dying. Weren't we discussing odds of being assaulted?

I wasn't. Doug brought up cases where people died and I cited statistics of
your chances of dying from various sources.

If you want to talk about chances of being assaulted, have fun. I did that
once and I spent two years in an argument and got to know the research
librarian in my county library personally, and almost memorized the bound
volumes of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and God knows how many pages of
Gary Kleck's voluminous outpourings in the process. g I think that Jon
Anderson may have seen some of it, over a decade ago, on the Outdoors Forum.
Today, you can do an endless Gunnerization of copy-and-paste with that
issue, citing from Kleck, Koppel, Lott,.and all the other gun nut
researchers (but you won't see the opposing views from Hemenway, Kasirir,
etc., I'll bet), and heaven help us if Gunner knows about E.A. Suter.

You'll have to do it without me. If Gunner gets wind of it he'll turn the
place into a verbal vomitorium. He has entire hard disks devoted to it.

It's much easier to stick to dead people. You can count them without much
ambiguity.

And that wording is funky. If one isn't paying attention, they'd think
the odds were higher, not the chances of dying. You meant 1:162, not
1:648, for poisoning, right?

Right. Funky is as funky does. I mean your chances are twice as high of
dying from poisoning and four times higher of dying in a car accident.
Please don't ask me about poisoning assaults. d8-)



I don't feel the *need* to carry a gun for the same reason I don't feel
the
*need* to hire someone to taste my food before eating, or to have myself
fitted with springs to prevent injury in a fall, or to have a NASCAR-type
roll cage installed in my family sedan.

Same here, but I keep one for those long odds.

Which is your right and your prerogative. I used to have an SCCA roll bar on
my MG, too, along with a fire extinguisher, a kill button, and a five-point
safety harness. 'Same idea.



Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them
make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.

No. I just finished P.J. O'Rourke's _On The Wealth of Nations_. It was a lot
more fun than the original. I'll look for _State of Fear_.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:34:10 -0800, "William Noble"
wrote:

Everybody would be better protected by such a move.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've hit one of the nails directly on the head. although it was
under Regan or Nixon (no veto) that California did this.

dennis
in nca

it was under Regan, it was conservatives not liberals, and the "no new
taxes" arm of the conservative movement is a strong force in preventing
proper care for mentally ill, so we get to enjoy them as homeless folks
sleeping in doorways downtown - It is most assuredly a bit disingenuous, to
say the least, to blame this on "liberals", though I know that many use the
word "liberal" for any person with whom they disagree. Of course, that not
only prevents communication on issues, but it corrupts the language, we have
already lost the use of the words Christian and Patriot - both now carry
heavily loaded political meanings that neither carried a decade ago - and
both of the overlaid meanings are abhorrent to me at least.

So, please, if you are going to argue politics instead of discussing metal
working, at least make a small attempt to steer towards objectivity and
leave the slathering invective to other venues.

If you are going to argue about "objectivity"...perhaps you should
practice it yourself....

http://www.beyondchron.org/depts/ind...d=5108&catid=4

"First, there is a widespread and routinely repeated view that
Governor Ronald Reagan “closed down the mental hospitals” in
California and that this remains a cause of homelessness in the state.
I’ve always disputed this view, since the alleged action occurred in
1965 while widespread homelessness did not emerge until 1982.

But although Boyarsky does not trumpet this fact, the
Lanterman-Petris-Short “bill of rights” for those with mental health
problems passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly 77-1. The Senate
also passed it easily, and Reagan then signed it into law.

So Reagan simply backed a Democratic bill and bears little
responsibility for leading the fight to close down state mental
hospitals. And the fact that the community-based facilities that
advocates hoped would replace the closed mental hospitals never were
funded can be more blamed on his successor, Democratic Governor Jerry
Brown----after all, the state had huge budget surpluses during Brown’s
first term, there was a Democratic-controlled legislature, and still
no major funding for new community-based mental health facilities."

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id343.htm

Many experts pointed to the "deinstitutionalizing" of patients in
mental hospitals that occurred in the Sixties and Seventies as part of
the problem. In the early 1960s, days of heady and high-minded social
reform, the decision was made to begin closing the "snake pits" --
mental hospitals -- and to create a new system of local mental health
centers. To that end, President John F. Kennedy signed the Community
Mental Health Centers Act in 1963. It was hoped that new wonder drugs
would enable many patients to function once they were reintroduced
into society. The result: the number of patients in state mental
hospitals declined from over 500,000 in 1960 to 150,000 twenty years
later. But community-based services were not adequate to take up the
slack; by 1988 it was estimated that most of the nation's largest
cities had no more than 10% of the institutional placements necessary
for the mentally ill.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:06:57 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:35:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote:


Not sayin' you shouldn't do it, just sayin'...



Better the perp maybe shoot a few bystanders, while trying to prevent
you from punching his ticket, than shooting a ****load with no one
trying to stop him.

Judgment call, only each individual can make.

Exactly, and I think you know what I'm sayin': don't take a shot in a
sit like that unless you're damned sure what the effect of that shot
will be. To do otherwise is to become part of the problem.

My prayers and best wishes to anyone put in that situation.

Keep in mind..that if you ever find yourself in a stand up, High Noon,
fair gun fight..your tactics simply suck.

I avoid "fair" fights of any kind whenever possible, and I've always
found it possible one way or another.

Shooting the sumbitch in the back, or head, is an approved and
encouraged method of pest eradication.

The laws, prosecutors and courts of MN strongly disagree.

If a perp is shooting people..and you simply blow out his brain stem
from the rear...they are gonna bitch about it?

Move, or get rid of your politicians.

If he is capping off rounds at the innocent, shouting "Freeze" is
simply a waste of perfectly good air,

and a possibly noble but very foolish way to become the next chosen
target.

Gunner

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:56:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.


Read it cover to cover Sunday while laid up. Fascinating book. Well
documented and foot noted.

Gunner

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:20:27 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:56:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.


Read it cover to cover Sunday while laid up.

WIA? Spill, mon.


Fascinating book. Well
documented and foot noted.

I thought so, too. It's a book which kicked my perceptions up a notch
and made me look around a bit more at the crap the environmental
terrorists are pulling.

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

Gunner wrote:

If a perp is shooting people..and you simply blow out his brain stem
from the rear...they are gonna bitch about it?

If he only got one or two probably, 5+ and your recently minted hero status
is going to save your arse.

Wes

SteveB wrote in article
...

"Pete C." wrote in message
...
David Courtney wrote:

That's funny!
The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of
gunshots
in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their
handgun
ban).
I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at
the
Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice:
http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp
All night long... pop, pop, pop.

According to recent reports, DC is only getting worse (go figure...).

But how can that be with all those laws?






"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" - Bumper Sticker

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

I don't know what media you're reading, but this is what the Washington Post
said about it:

"...and was confronted and shot by Jeanne Assam, a former police officer who
was serving as a volunteer security guard, police said."

"'I saw him coming through the doors, and I took cover, and I waited for him
to get closer,' Assam told reporters. 'I came out of cover, I identified
myself and engaged him and took him down,' she said.
"[New Life Church senior pastor Brady Boyd] said Assam is a 'highly
trained' volunteer with a law enforcement background who also serves as his
bodyguard."

--

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

snip

Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

And here's what The New York Times had to say:

"...who was shot by a volunteer security guard during the second incident,
at the New Life Church here.
"The guard, Jeanne Assam, a church member with police experience and a
pistol permit, said she took cover..."

Maybe you need to read a better class of newspapers.

--

Ed Huntress

They don't call DC the logic free zone without reason.

Wayne

QED. The situation in D.C. is a disgrace to our country. It is not
an example of how things are in the USA.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:57:21 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:20:27 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:56:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid
places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high.
We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make
little or no sense on the basis of probabilities.

Read _State of Fear_ yet, Ed? The media are helping us to scare
ourselves broke and/or to death.


Read it cover to cover Sunday while laid up.

WIA? Spill, mon.

Walking pneumonia. I sorta kinda collapsed Friday night. Managed to
make it to home..slept nearly 12 hours, hit a urgent care clinic..got
a diagnosis and a couple shots of antibiotics in the ass and a
dressing down for letting myself get so worn out..

Seems Im a bit old to be doing a months worth of 18-36 hour stints of
hard work in cold buildings, fueled by fast food and Monster energy
drink. Partiularly during "cold season".

I still worked two guys in their primes, asses off and outlasted them,
so Im not too broken down yet...chuckle.

I tend to be "mission oriented"..damn the torpedos and full speed
ahead and all that.

Im feeling better. Yesterday I took it easy, ate well, got lots of
sleep last night, feel almost decent this morning. Munching on yogurt
and oatmeal as I type this.

I didnt let it get in the way of the job, and they still got their
monies worth yesterday,


Fascinating book. Well
documented and foot noted.

I thought so, too. It's a book which kicked my perceptions up a notch
and made me look around a bit more at the crap the environmental
terrorists are pulling.


Indeed,

Gunner

You have people from all 50 states sending their most ambitious thieves,
child molesters, and drug addicts to Washington, DC... what do you expect?


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:29:50 -0600, "David Courtney"
wrote:

That's funny!
The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of
gunshots
in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their handgun
ban).
I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at the
Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice:
http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp
All night long... pop, pop, pop.

QED. The situation in D.C. is a disgrace to our country. It is not
an example of how things are in the USA.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:22 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

She was/is a former Minneapolis police officer. She was fired for
"untruthfulness", denying that she had been verbally abusive with a
perp (zounds!) when they had tape proving otherwise.

The article didn't say what happened to the perp.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Right. She was acting as a private citizen.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:54:33 -0600, "David Courtney"
wrote:

You have people from all 50 states sending their most ambitious thieves,
child molesters, and drug addicts to Washington, DC... what do you expect?

LOL. "We don't want him here, let's pack him off to Washington!"

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:54:33 -0600, "David Courtney"
wrote:

You have people from all 50 states sending their most ambitious
thieves,
child molesters, and drug addicts to Washington, DC... what do you expect?

Trouble is, most of them were sent there by the election process.

Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:22 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

She was/is a former Minneapolis police officer. She was fired for
"untruthfulness", denying that she had been verbally abusive with a
perp (zounds!) when they had tape proving otherwise.

The article didn't say what happened to the perp.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Right. She was acting as a private citizen.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

But how can this be? It has been stated here that there is a
causation/correlation argument the whole thing. And everyone knows that
it is just a bunch of paranoid CCW holders that are spreading these vicious
rumors. And that it is a proven fact that armed citizens NEVER have stopped
a crime in progress. I know this to be true because I have read it on the
Internet and in this newsgroup.

BTW, did you read about the Viet Nam vet who couldn't get the handgun away
from the male "security guard" even though said coward wouldn't fire at the
perp?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22198709/

They said he was yelling, "COWARD!" at the gunman, but I think he was
talking to the armed male "security guard" who wouldn't fire and wouldn't
give the pistol to a trained ex-military person.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:22 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

She was/is a former Minneapolis police officer. She was fired for
"untruthfulness", denying that she had been verbally abusive with a
perp (zounds!) when they had tape proving otherwise.

The article didn't say what happened to the perp.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Right. She was acting as a private citizen.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.


Gunner

But how can this be? It has been stated here that there is a
causation/correlation argument the whole thing. And everyone knows
that it is just a bunch of paranoid CCW holders that are spreading these
vicious rumors.

If you've read the reports from the mainstream media, there is no spin. She
is a former cop who volunteers to do security for the church, including
being a bodyguard for the pastor. As the pastor says, she is "well-trained."
In contrast to what Gunner and you are implying, she isn't just an ordinary
church lady who happened to have a pistol in her garter while she sold
brownies at the church bake sale.

Furthermore, Gunner says there are "some 20 other parishoners" who have
CCWs. I don't know where he found that; the gunsites I checked said 12. I
don't know where they could have gotten that, either. But there are 14,000
parishoners in that church. About 1/2 of 1% of Colorado residents have CCW
permits, according to the state, which suggests that parishoners of that
church are quite a bit less likely than average CO residents to have one.

That's probably why they have security guards, both paid and volunteer. And
a former cop is a top candidate to be a volunteer security guard.

If you noticed the earlier posts from which I copied the NYT and the Wash.
Post quotes on the story, they contained all of this information except for
the number of CCW permit holders in the congregation, which probably is a
crock of crap anyway, wherever Gunner got it, and which most people would
consider irrelevant to the story.

What was that you were saying about spin?

--
Ed Huntress

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:21:22
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

I still worked two guys in their primes, asses off and outlasted them,
so Im not too broken down yet...chuckle.

I tend to be "mission oriented"..damn the torpedos and full speed
ahead and all that.

Modify the mission orientation: you don't get points if you don't
complete it.

And it really sucks to have to blow the bonus on medical treatments
:-)

Im feeling better. Yesterday I took it easy, ate well, got lots of
sleep last night, feel almost decent this morning. Munching on yogurt
and oatmeal as I type this.

Good stuff, that.
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

On Dec 10, 12:05 am, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Or we could have made sure the shooter never had access to the gun in
the first place....

Oh yeah....bring my gun to the mall and to church.

*Shaking my head*

I thought this was the Land of the Free and the Brave.

Looks like to me that it is the Land of the Coward and the
Paranoid...attempting to use a gun to bandaid the real problem will
not fix it.

Doesn't anyone else see that a serious problem exists?

Meanwhile we continue to allow people to be killed by those who should
never have access to guns.

Hmm...maybe taking your gun to church isn't such a bad idea....I bet
the sermon would become a lot shorter. ;)

TMT

On Dec 10, 7:36 am, wrote:
On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you
have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society
where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier
members........

I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc
etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping
centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence....

How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? -
there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth...

Andrew VK3BFA.

It's called RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

A concept that the United States is slowly moving towards...with the
bodies to show for the progress.

TMT

On Dec 10, 8:24 am, Wes wrote:
wrote:
How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? -
there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth...

I've carried spare tires in various vehicles for over a million miles hoping
that I wouldn't have a flat. I've had two and both in my driveway. Why do
I continue to waste time and fuel carrying the spare? Well because if I do
need it and I'm not at home, I really going to need it.

These nutcase's are random acts and get played up in the media. On the same
day drunks and idiots playing with their cell phones killed many more on the
highway and tomorrow the same group will kill as many.

I have a carry permit and I carry. I have no desire to get into a Walter
Mitty shootem up scenario. I also have no desire to have some nut or mugger
end my peaceful existence on this good earth.

From what I've been told you have a category of crime described as hot home
invasion where the robbers break in while you are home. That is not common
here in most of the states and I doubt it happens at all in Texas.

Enjoy your bit of paradise, I'll work on continuing to improve mine. I
believe a society that sanctions citizens to present consequences to those
that transgress, rather than be sheep at slaughter, will prevail.

Wes

Good comparsion....it was pointed out to me years ago that for the
money it costs to carry a spare tire around versus the moments you
need it, you could easily afford AAA. and have money left over.

They were right.

But I still carry my spare tire.

Old habits die hard.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:

I think that Jon Anderson may have seen some of it, over a decade ago, on the Outdoors Forum.

Suffering from CRS, I have only vague memories of that topic
there. I bailed after some guy started mouthing off how
easily he could build a surface to air missile that could
take down our own fighter jets.

Funny though, I still remember my CIS address, 71620,662.

Jon

On Dec 10, 8:27 am, Lew Hartswick wrote:
wrote:

Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you
have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society
where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier
members........

Andrew VK3BFA.

Mostly we know what the problem is. It's that the courts are so full
of "bleeding heart liberals" (like those in England and Australia)
that the "nutters" are on the street instead of an instution where
they wouldn't be any threat.

...lew...

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

Fix that problem and the innocent will stop dying.

Requiring psych testing for gun ownership and usage would be a good
first step.

SEVERE penalties for allowing others unauthorized access to your
weapons would be another.

TMT

On Dec 10, 8:55 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you
have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society
where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier
members........

We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection
against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes
little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous
pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here
a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've
chosen to stay where the danger is.

Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in
the US. What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and
wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of
citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a
slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like
this. That's why you almost never hear of it.



I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc
etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping
centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence....

That may be your impression, particularly because such shootings come in
clusters and the media jumps all over them like each one is the World Cup or
the Superbowl, but the fact is they're extremely rare.



How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? -
there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth...

As for coping with it, again, the chances of being caught in one of those
situations is orders of magnitude less than that of being hit by a car and
killed on the highway. That doesn't make the shootings less dramatic but it
does permeate one's consciousness that you're looking at something that's
remarkable because it's so exceptional, and that the attention paid to it
has more to do with the media's (and the public's) hunger for melodrama.

If you want paranoia, there are parts of most large cities into which you
could venture for your bottle of milk and have much more reason to be
paranoid. Most of us just don't go there. Suburban shopping malls are not
where the real problems lie.

I don't make light of what you're saying, but I think you'll find that such
rare-but-dangerous situations are treated similarly around the world,
wherever they're encountered. Interviews with Israelis who have had narrow
escapes from suicide bombers provide a much more significant example of how
people react to higher incidences of such horrors. They shock and give one
something to think about, but the fact is that the chance of *you* being
caught in one is statistically remote. So life goes on, almost without a
hiccup.

--
Ed Huntress

Good discussion.

Actually the greatest danger from personal weapons is domestic
shootings...family members or friends shooting each other....not from
the crazy mall or church shooters.

TMT

On Dec 10, 11:52 am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:36:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a
concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the
carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon.

Steve

Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you
have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society
where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier
members........

I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc
etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping
centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence....

How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? -
there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth...

Andrew VK3BFA.

If you were to visit, I think your impresssion would be very different
than the one you've formed from the sensational media and from a very
few but very vocal gun owners. Except for perhaps a few gang-infested
inner-city neighborhoods, the USA does not rattle with gunfire as the
media might lead you to believe. One might hear gunfire in the woods,
fields and wetlands during hunting season, not otherwise.

I live in a major metropolitan area, the Minneapols-St. Paul
(Minnesota) seven-county metro area. I have never in the 40 years
I've lived here seen a gun even brandished, much less fired, in any
public place other than a range. It is safe to go to any mall when it
is open. Children go to them routinely. Malls have security guards
to curb shoplifting, but they are very rarely armed.

Between 1% and 2% of the people in my state have CCW permits. Not all
that have permits actually carry routinely, frequently or even
occasionally. I have a permit but do not carry because I feel no
need to do so. I have the permit for two reasons. First reason is
convenience: the permit frees me from some pesky rules regarding
transport of my guns to and from shooting ranges. The second is in
the highly unlikely event of a major disaster like Katrina, when
people demonstrably get crazy. There was a thread on this NG after
Katrina re the question of whether or not it is moral to steal from
another in such a situation. The majority of posters thought it was
moral for the imprudent to steal from the prudent in such a situation.
Wow! I secured my carry permit shortly after that.

I regard the likelihood of an armed intrusion into my house as
vanishingly small. There hasn't been one in my community in 40 years
as far as I know.

I have guns for the same reason you have radios: because I enjoy
them. Shooting, like machining and welding, is a skill that can
always be improved but never can be completely mastered. The fun is
in the quest. I enjoy firing my guns reasonably well just as I enjoy
making a nice job of a tricky weld or machining something that fits oh
so nice. A correspondent and I frequently email photos of targets
back and forth. Our recent targets look a lot better than those of
only a year ago ... and next year's targets will be better yet. The
current challenge is to punch a hole in a dime at 100 meters with one
round. One fouling round and one wind-check round is permitted before
loading one round to fire for record. A miss or a nick flunks, don't
get another try-for-record until next range visit. Only a clean hole
completely surrounded by metal counts. When we accomplish that,
we'll then move out to 200 meters, and so on...

Accomplished long-range shooters put several rounds thru the same hole
at ranges considerably beyond 100 meters. We're not there ... yet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As usual Don writes a good discussion.

I agree.

TMT

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:21:22 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

Read it cover to cover Sunday while laid up.

WIA? Spill, mon.

Walking pneumonia.

Again? Bummer. Didn't you have that same malady last year, before
the heart attack?


I sorta kinda collapsed Friday night. Managed to
make it to home..slept nearly 12 hours, hit a urgent care clinic..got
a diagnosis and a couple shots of antibiotics in the ass and a
dressing down for letting myself get so worn out..

There goes half your profit from this job.


Seems Im a bit old to be doing a months worth of 18-36 hour stints of
hard work in cold buildings, fueled by fast food and Monster energy
drink. Partiularly during "cold season".

You fuel! Fast food has no nutrition and energy drinks are a quick
way to skew your entire metabolism. Sugar water, sometimes caffeine,
and a few assorted totally-unbalanced vitamins won't support life.
Next time, find a health food cafe and get stuff to go.


I still worked two guys in their primes, asses off and outlasted them,
so Im not too broken down yet...chuckle.

Until you were nearly hospitalized. Cool move, Bozo.


I tend to be "mission oriented"..damn the torpedos and full speed
ahead and all that.

Ditto here. I've worked my ass off on a fencing job the past two days
and will take tomorrow off to just lay some more rocks in a fieldstone
pathway.


Im feeling better. Yesterday I took it easy, ate well, got lots of
sleep last night, feel almost decent this morning. Munching on yogurt
and oatmeal as I type this.

Eat better and snack in between with -good- foods, guajalote. Your
body will thank you by not dropping dead on you.


I didnt let it get in the way of the job, and they still got their
monies worth yesterday,

A big fat check at the end of the month, sent to your funeral, won't
be nearly as much fun.


Fascinating book. Well
documented and foot noted.

I thought so, too. It's a book which kicked my perceptions up a notch
and made me look around a bit more at the crap the environmental
terrorists are pulling.

Indeed,

Now go take your beauty rest, eh?

Be well.

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:21:22 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

Im feeling better. Yesterday I took it easy, ate well, got lots of
sleep last night, feel almost decent this morning. Munching on yogurt
and oatmeal as I type this.

I forgot to comment on that one. Knowing you, it was probably that
pseudo-flavored, dead-culture yogurt from the supermarket, the one
with 36 grams of sugar and no flora in it.

I like Brown Cow Cream Top (plain) with raw hiker's trail mix on the
top. It's enough real fuel to get you to the top of a mountain.

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:41:54 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" quickly quoth:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:22 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

She was/is a former Minneapolis police officer. She was fired for
"untruthfulness", denying that she had been verbally abusive with a
perp (zounds!) when they had tape proving otherwise.

The article didn't say what happened to the perp.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Right. She was acting as a private citizen.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.

But how can this be? It has been stated here that there is a
causation/correlation argument the whole thing. And everyone knows that
it is just a bunch of paranoid CCW holders that are spreading these vicious
rumors. And that it is a proven fact that armed citizens NEVER have stopped
a crime in progress. I know this to be true because I have read it on the
Internet and in this newsgroup.

BSEG


BTW, did you read about the Viet Nam vet who couldn't get the handgun away
from the male "security guard" even though said coward wouldn't fire at the
perp?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22198709/

They said he was yelling, "COWARD!" at the gunman, but I think he was
talking to the armed male "security guard" who wouldn't fire and wouldn't
give the pistol to a trained ex-military person.

Y'know, the outstanding upside to all this is that the religious
freaks are now starting to off themselves, and others of their ilk,
just like the gang bangers have for years.

Think of it as evolution in action. wink

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

On Dec 10, 11:24 am, "*" wrote:
wrote in article
...







Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you
have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society
where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier
members........

I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc
etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping
centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence....

How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? -
there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth...

A while back, the liberals insisted on the rights of the mentally
challenged - who were being housed as much for their own protection as that
of innocent civilians - to be mainstreamed into society....

....and they were all released from a protective custody that was, in
actuality, a two-way street that protected the mentally-incapacitated from
themselves, and the innocent from the mentall-incapacitated/dangerous.

Of course, the liberals are NOW whining about the plight of these
"....poor, often mentally-challenged, street people....." - a class which
they, themselves, created.

One - not necessarily the entire - answer would be to again house some of
these people who are now roaming the streets - threatening innocent people,
shoplifting and stealing to survive, commiting crime, etc.

Everybody would be better protected by such a move.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean all those homeless mentally challenged vets?

TMT

In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

A lot of them have badges too

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

A lot of them have badges too


Was that supposed to be funny?

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress wrote:

I think that Jon Anderson may have seen some of it, over a decade ago, on
the Outdoors Forum.

Suffering from CRS, I have only vague memories of that topic there. I
bailed after some guy started mouthing off how easily he could build a
surface to air missile that could take down our own fighter jets.

Hmm. Yes, it would remind you of things that go on here sometimes. 'Must be
the same gene pool. d8-)

Do you remember Tony Mandile, the guy who writes for the outdoors magazines?
I called him to wish him a merry Christmas last week.


Funny though, I still remember my CIS address, 71620,662.

76537,513. From 1983. I did have several other numbers, though, as a sysop
on several forums.

--
Ed Huntress

SteveB wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The Problem is that irresponsible people have access to weapons.

A lot of them have badges too


Was that supposed to be funny?

Probably, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:41:54 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
"SteveB" quickly quoth:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:22 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:02:02 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really
believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in
"the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

And the fact that when citizens DO help control the
situation, while armed, this almost never gets re-
ported by the media. And also ignored are the
thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the
Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a
violent crime.


Ive not been following the news lately, but after reading a report on
the Lady "Security Guard" who shot the badguy at the church...

It should be noted..she was NO "security guard", but a lady parisoner
who volunteered to act as security as she had a CCW permit (along with
some 20 other parisoners.

And she.. a simple armed citizen with a CCW..shot the bad guy before
he could kill far more.

She was/is a former Minneapolis police officer. She was fired for
"untruthfulness", denying that she had been verbally abusive with a
perp (zounds!) when they had tape proving otherwise.

The article didn't say what happened to the perp.

The spin the media is putting on the "Security Guard" business would
lead people to believe she was in uniform, in the employ of a security
firm. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Right. She was acting as a private citizen.

The Medias spin is pecular and apparent.

They are doing everything possible to avoid saying an armed citizen
ended the onslaught.

But how can this be? It has been stated here that there is a
causation/correlation argument the whole thing. And everyone knows that
it is just a bunch of paranoid CCW holders that are spreading these vicious
rumors. And that it is a proven fact that armed citizens NEVER have stopped
a crime in progress. I know this to be true because I have read it on the
Internet and in this newsgroup.

BSEG

BTW, did you read about the Viet Nam vet who couldn't get the handgun away
from the male "security guard" even though said coward wouldn't fire at the
perp?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22198709/

They said he was yelling, "COWARD!" at the gunman, but I think he was
talking to the armed male "security guard" who wouldn't fire and wouldn't
give the pistol to a trained ex-military person.

Y'know, the outstanding upside to all this is that the religious
freaks are now starting to off themselves, and others of their ilk,
just like the gang bangers have for years.

Think of it as evolution in action. wink

--
My future starts when I wake up every morning...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
-- Miles Davis

Works for me. If all the christians and muslims manage to kill each
other off as they are trying to do, then the remaining sane, civilized
world may have a chance at peace.