On Dec 26, 8:22*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in m...





Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:13 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by
*that ban, is the criminal who ignores laws like "don't shoot people"
and all that.
Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when you needed
them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to investigate
crimes that have already happened and catch the bad
*guys who did them. The only way to have cops always there when
*you need them is to have LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under Franco
was like that, and the former East Germany. I don't want
*that.
Yup. *As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops can't be
everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow that's not a truth or
relevant to self-defense unless I, specifically, have personally needed
one who wasn't around. Doesn't work that way, again, that's like
pretending that flat tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

So Dave has apparently has no examples of how the cops were not there for
him.

Almost anyone who's a victim of a crime is an example of cops not
being there for them.

Why does this not surprise me?

Why would it surprise you? Are you unable to read and understand what
I posted above? Try it again, starting with "? Cops..."

So Dave do you have any examples of how carrying a gun has protected you?
No fantasies...just facts please.

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our
governor has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have CCW
with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of
violence by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of course,
because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David

It's been a long long long time since I heard of a deer hunter being robbed
.............

Steve ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently Wisconsin has a problem with Bambi Gone Bad......probably
hung around Thrumper too long.

TMT

On Dec 26, 7:35*am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:13 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them,
they're not where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm
banned from defending myself, the only person made safer by
*that ban, is the criminal who ignores laws like "don't
shoot people" and all that.
Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when
you needed them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to
investigate crimes that have already happened and catch the bad
*guys who did them. The only way to have cops always there when
*you need them is to have LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under
Franco was like that, and the former East Germany. I don't want
*that.
Yup. *As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops
can't be everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow
that's not a truth or relevant to self-defense unless I,
specifically, have personally needed one who wasn't around.
Doesn't work that way, again, that's like pretending that flat
tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

So Dave has apparently has no examples of how the cops were not
there for him.

Almost anyone who's a victim of a crime is an example of cops not
being there for them.



Why does this not surprise me?

Why would it surprise you? Are you unable to read and understand what
I posted above? Try it again, starting with "? Cops..."



So Dave do you have any examples of how carrying a gun has
protected you? No fantasies...just facts please.

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our
governor has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have CCW
with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of
violence by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of course,
because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.

So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

TMT

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:22:46 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

schnipp

It's been a long long long time since I heard of a deer hunter being robbed

I'd never heard of it before a couple of months ago. Some friends of
mine went elk hunting in MT this year, two of 'em got one. They went
back to camp to grab a couple of quads to pack 'em down. When they
(four of 'em) returned there were a dozen + guys, armed and they had
walkie talkies, who were quarterin' up th' kills.

Three of m' buds had left their rifles at camp. Th' one guy who
brought his started to raise it, but th' other three stopped him since
they were sorely outnumbered. Plus they were out inna middle of
nowhere in unfamiliar territory. Needless to say they were scared
****less and not even remotely prepared for that **** to happen.

That was Mike's first elk and he's still ****ed about it. Stealin'
another guys meat is some low down ****. I hope there's a special
place in hell for 'em. My guess is that wasn't th' first time those
guys did that.

Snarl

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:22:46 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:13 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. So, I'm on my own. If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by
that ban, is the criminal who ignores laws like "don't shoot people"
and all that.
Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when you needed
them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to investigate
crimes that have already happened and catch the bad
guys who did them. The only way to have cops always there when
you need them is to have LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under Franco
was like that, and the former East Germany. I don't want
that.
Yup. As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops can't be
everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow that's not a truth or
relevant to self-defense unless I, specifically, have personally needed
one who wasn't around. Doesn't work that way, again, that's like
pretending that flat tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

So Dave has apparently has no examples of how the cops were not there for
him.

Almost anyone who's a victim of a crime is an example of cops not
being there for them.

Why does this not surprise me?

Why would it surprise you? Are you unable to read and understand what
I posted above? Try it again, starting with "? Cops..."

So Dave do you have any examples of how carrying a gun has protected you?
No fantasies...just facts please.

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our
governor has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have CCW
with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of
violence by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of course,
because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David

It's been a long long long time since I heard of a deer hunter being robbed
.............

Steve ;-)


Or mass robberies at gun shows....

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:22:46 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

schnipp

It's been a long long long time since I heard of a deer hunter being
robbed

I'd never heard of it before a couple of months ago. Some friends of
mine went elk hunting in MT this year, two of 'em got one. They went
back to camp to grab a couple of quads to pack 'em down. When they
(four of 'em) returned there were a dozen + guys, armed and they had
walkie talkies, who were quarterin' up th' kills.

Three of m' buds had left their rifles at camp. Th' one guy who
brought his started to raise it, but th' other three stopped him since
they were sorely outnumbered. Plus they were out inna middle of
nowhere in unfamiliar territory. Needless to say they were scared
****less and not even remotely prepared for that **** to happen.

That was Mike's first elk and he's still ****ed about it. Stealin'
another guys meat is some low down ****. I hope there's a special
place in hell for 'em. My guess is that wasn't th' first time those
guys did that.

Snarl

I am truly comforted by this thought:

Mean tough lowlife sumbitches always eventually meet up with someone meaner,
tougher, and lower. You don't go around doing that long before luck runs
out.

Still, losing all that elk is sad.

Steve

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:15:57 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.

So anything I witnessed but you didn't can only be a fantasy?

Most of us grow up beyond the point of only believing direct personal
experience. TMT has not reached that point.

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

And innocent people defend their lives with guns, but less likely to
be on the news if no one is shot, which is usually the case.


Isn't it interesting that TMT writes "guns do kill"?, rather than "armed
criminals kill"? He's blaming the machine, not the meat. I think
that's quite telling. The extreme leftist mind, you see, isn't capable
of acknowledging that people can be just plain bad, so they have to
blame things that can't be offended. It's odd that they don't think
that through and realize that, by blaming anyone who has a gun except for the
criminals, they're doing exactly the wrong thing. TMT, you are
defending a bad person, and blaming the vast, vast majority of good gun
owners for the actions of that criminal. That's what you are saying
when you write "guns do kill", even if you don't know it.

Is it comfy and safe under that bridge?

He's not a troll, he's an idiot. Trolls, you see, know WTF they're
talking about.

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:30:43 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 06:22:46 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

schnipp

It's been a long long long time since I heard of a deer hunter being
robbed

I'd never heard of it before a couple of months ago. Some friends of
mine went elk hunting in MT this year, two of 'em got one. They went
back to camp to grab a couple of quads to pack 'em down. When they
(four of 'em) returned there were a dozen + guys, armed and they had
walkie talkies, who were quarterin' up th' kills.

Three of m' buds had left their rifles at camp. Th' one guy who
brought his started to raise it, but th' other three stopped him since
they were sorely outnumbered. Plus they were out inna middle of
nowhere in unfamiliar territory. Needless to say they were scared
****less and not even remotely prepared for that **** to happen.

That was Mike's first elk and he's still ****ed about it. Stealin'
another guys meat is some low down ****. I hope there's a special
place in hell for 'em. My guess is that wasn't th' first time those
guys did that.

Snarl

I am truly comforted by this thought:

Mean tough lowlife sumbitches always eventually meet up with someone meaner,
tougher, and lower. You don't go around doing that long before luck runs
out.

Still, losing all that elk is sad.

Steve

Unless you were prepared to stand off some distance and snipe em,
shrug. Easy enought to have terminated all dozen + before they would
have been able to escape...but to do so over an elk...shrug.

One hopes that they got a LP number or other ID.

Buddy of a buddy had that happen with a mountain goat once, he was
going for the All American 5. Ever since then, he carries a can of
dayglo green spray paint. The moment he gets up to the carcass, he
spritzes it pretty good. Its really hard for a bandit to claim it was
his after that.

Gunner, who is a firm believer of the 3S method of bandit control



Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our governor
has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have
CCW with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of violence
by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of
course, because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.

So anything I witnessed but you didn't can only be a fantasy?

So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?

Yes, first hand and some second hand evidence. OTOH, I doubt if you
would believe it even if you had seen what I did.

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

And innocent people defend their lives with guns, but less likely to
be on the news if no one is shot, which is usually the case.

Is it comfy and safe under that bridge?

David

As a child, I was enthralled with National Geographic. However, I have
never traveled to all those places. I do believe they exist. And that I
will never see them all. How small an existence it must be for people who
cannot perceive or believe in anything except what they have seen. And
then, question that.

Steve

On Dec 26, 7:33*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:15:57 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
*apply.

So anything I witnessed but you didn't can only be a fantasy?

Most of us grow up beyond the point of only believing direct personal
experience. *TMT has not reached that point.

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
*people...

And innocent people defend their lives with guns, but less likely to
be on the news if no one is shot, which is usually the case.

Isn't it interesting that TMT writes "guns do kill"?, rather than "armed
criminals kill"? *He's blaming the machine, not the meat. *I think
that's quite telling. *The extreme leftist mind, you see, isn't capable
of acknowledging that people can be just plain bad, so they have to
blame things that can't be offended. *It's odd that they don't think
that through and realize that, by blaming anyone who has a gun except for the
criminals, they're doing exactly the wrong thing. *TMT, you are
defending a bad person, and blaming the vast, vast majority of good gun
owners for the actions of that criminal. *That's what you are saying
when you write "guns do kill", even if you don't know it.

Is it comfy and safe under that bridge?

He's not a troll, he's an idiot. *Trolls, you see, know WTF they're
talking about.

LOL...isn't it the Great and Holy NRA that tells us that people and
not guns kill people?

Interesting that you are now telling us that this Comandment is wrong.

Conservatives can't seem to get their lies straight.

Also very interesting that you seek to divert attention from the fact
that you never came back with evidence to support your claims.

And Dave....just so you know....I own and enjoy my guns responsibily.

As I said before...a responsible gun owner does not fear accountable
gun ownership requirements.

Tell me...what is your opinion of armed deer? Are you losing sleep
about Bambi coming to seek her revenge?

TMT

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:59:43 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 26, 7:35*am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:13 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them,
they're not where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm
banned from defending myself, the only person made safer by
*that ban, is the criminal who ignores laws like "don't
shoot people" and all that.
Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when
you needed them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to
investigate crimes that have already happened and catch the bad
*guys who did them. The only way to have cops always there when
*you need them is to have LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under
Franco was like that, and the former East Germany. I don't want
*that.
Yup. *As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops
can't be everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow
that's not a truth or relevant to self-defense unless I,
specifically, have personally needed one who wasn't around.
Doesn't work that way, again, that's like pretending that flat
tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

So Dave has apparently has no examples of how the cops were not
there for him.

Almost anyone who's a victim of a crime is an example of cops not
being there for them.



Why does this not surprise me?

Why would it surprise you? Are you unable to read and understand what
I posted above? Try it again, starting with "? Cops..."



So Dave do you have any examples of how carrying a gun has
protected you? No fantasies...just facts please.

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our
governor has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have CCW
with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of
violence by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of course,
because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.

So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

as do auto accidents, various diseases and old age.

On Dec 27, 1:28*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:59:43 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 26, 7:35*am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 25, 1:13 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them,
they're not where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm
banned from defending myself, the only person made safer by
*that ban, is the criminal who ignores laws like "don't
shoot people" and all that.
Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when
you needed them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to
investigate crimes that have already happened and catch the bad
*guys who did them. The only way to have cops always there when
*you need them is to have LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under
Franco was like that, and the former East Germany. I don't want
*that.
Yup. *As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops
can't be everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow
that's not a truth or relevant to self-defense unless I,
specifically, have personally needed one who wasn't around.
Doesn't work that way, again, that's like pretending that flat
tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

So Dave has apparently has no examples of how the cops were not
there for him.

Almost anyone who's a victim of a crime is an example of cops not
being there for them.

Why does this not surprise me?

Why would it surprise you? Are you unable to read and understand what
I posted above? Try it again, starting with "? Cops..."

So Dave do you have any examples of how carrying a gun has
protected you? No fantasies...just facts please.

Not an issue here, both Dave and I live in Wisconsin, where our
governor has recognized that the residents of this state are less
trustworthy and competent than those of all the states that have CCW
with no problems. There is no CCW in Wisconsin.

I know of cases where a Wisconsin resident prevented a crime of
violence by illegally carrying a concealed gun. No cites, of course,
because the violent crime DIDN'T HAPPEN.

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.

So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?

Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

as do auto accidents, various diseases and old age.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct Don...to me a gun is just one more tool.

Use any tool responsibily and it allows the user to accomplish more.

Allow it to be used irresponsibily and like any tool it can harm, main
and kill.

TMT

A young cowboy named Billy Joe
Grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wanderlust
Who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He sang a song as on he rode,
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town,
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar and laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself at last he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mother's words;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

Bill was raged and Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor the crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:06:39 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

A young cowboy named Billy Joe
Grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wanderlust
Who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He sang a song as on he rode,
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town,
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar and laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself at last he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mother's words;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

Bill was raged and Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor the crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words;

Refrain:
"Don't take your guns to town, son
Leave your guns at home, Bill
Don't take your guns to town."

Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.

Darwin at work.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner Asch wrote:

Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.


Besides, saloons are no carry zones.

Wes

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos shoed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:34:44 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when you needed
them.

? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to investigate
crimes that have already happened and catch the bad guys who did them.
The only way to have cops always there when you need them is to have
LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under Franco was like that,

Save that it doesn't prevent crime either. I know, I had a radio
stolen in broad daylight, in Madrid, long before Franco became a SNL
punch line. Yeah, the Big Crimes were down, but the petty crime still
happened.

Even in a Police stat, there's never a cop around when you want
one; even if it seems there is one when you don't.


pyotr
--
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 27, 10:43*pm, Wes wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.

Besides, saloons are no carry zones.

Wes

You don't go to many saloons do you?

TMT

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:28:40 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:59:43 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.
So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?
Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...

as do auto accidents, various diseases and old age.

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any crimes,
criminals are. Until he solves that problem, he has no place stopping
me protecting myself from the criminals.

On Dec 28, 7:50*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:28:40 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:59:43 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

As I requested before...just the facts please....fantasies need not
apply.
So you have no evidence that guns deter crime?
Meanwhile the news each day has evidence that guns do kill innocent
people...
as do auto accidents, various diseases and old age.

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any crimes,
criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no place stopping
me protecting myself from the criminals.

So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

TMT

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.

So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

They've changed from violent crimes like mugging using guns where they
now have a risk of being shot to less violent crimes like burglary
where they can expect the occupant is gone or asleep. And they still
have an edge in violent crimes because they are prepared for the
situation, an armed citizen has to recognize the threat as a threat,
which can slow his reaction.

David

And those with any intelligence at all have moved to identity theft and
cybercrime. Why even have to go out into the cold when you can sit in front
of a computer in your jammies and fuzzyy slippers and make ten to a hundred
times more? Then there are those nasty car chases and you MIGHT get blown
away. And the pursuit, apprehension, and prosecution of the new brand of
thieves is very little. A small amount of jail time IF you do get caught.

The smart ones are at this moment sipping a margarita at a resort beach
laughing at all the homies that are running and gunning around for pennies.
And the dumb homies who are running and gunning are saying, "We doan neeeed
no steeeeenkeeeeng education!"

Steve

Steve

On Dec 29, 10:04*am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
Too_Small_Tool wrote:
And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.

So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

They've changed from violent crimes like mugging using guns where they
now have a risk of being shot to less violent crimes like burglary
where they can expect the occupant is gone or asleep. And they still
have an edge in violent crimes because they are prepared for the
situation, an armed citizen has to recognize the threat as a threat,
which can slow his reaction.

David

Violent crime is up...not down.

And you didn't answer the question....

So again Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't
the criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

TMT

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:04:33 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:
Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.

So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....

You still haven't established (a) what that means, or (b) that it's true.

why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

Let's see if he can take it one step further. Because, TMT, people like
David and me are banned from carrying guns, concealed, in public. Yet
the criminals do, because they're criminals. Are you starting to see
the tactical disadvantage yet?

On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Violent crime is up...not down.

TMT

Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

This is just like the 'baby children' being killed in L.A.
As it turned out the Libs were making everyone under 21 into baby age.
And they were killing each other. Gangs from foreign countries that
once were fighting home land wars thought little of using an automatic
(made by themselves from a semi) on each other or their family.

Drugs, land, color, just because. Between Asian and some central American
gangs it was way to rough for most to live a nice life.

Now it is once again a massive southern boarder influx and these are often
the poor, drug running, used to paying off and taking from others and
from time to time, the local police will catch someone of a heinous act
and it will be an illegal that was exported but came back for more.
Now we get to pay forever keeping them in nice color TV rooms with
3 squares. One can only hope their roommate teaches them lessons.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:04 am, "David R. Birch" wrote:
Too_Small_Tool wrote:
And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.
So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?
At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

They've changed from violent crimes like mugging using guns where they
now have a risk of being shot to less violent crimes like burglary
where they can expect the occupant is gone or asleep. And they still
have an edge in violent crimes because they are prepared for the
situation, an armed citizen has to recognize the threat as a threat,
which can slow his reaction.

David

Violent crime is up...not down.

And you didn't answer the question....

So again Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....why haven't
the criminals been stopped from committing crimes?

TMT

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:04:52 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 29, 2:23*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:04:33 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:

Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.
So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....

You still haven't established (a) what that means, or (b) that it's true. *

why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?
At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

Let's see if he can take it one step further. *Because, TMT, people like
David and me are banned from carrying guns, concealed, in public. *Yet
the criminals do, because they're criminals. *Are you starting to see
the tactical disadvantage yet?

Maybe you should go live in a nudist colony?

Then the concealment issue you seem so concerned with is a nonissue.

TMT
No..then I carry in a fanny pack, or man purse.

Been there, done that.

You on the other hand...are ripe fruit for any criminal who decides
you are easy meat.

Hope its soon.

Gunner

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:07:42 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 29, 3:50*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.

TMT

Can you post a web site that supports this. *"Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. *This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

TMT

"Recent increases in violence have prompted new efforts by the federal
government to address evidence of rising gang activity and drug
markets in some cities."


Yet its people like you who dont want draconian measures to repair the
illegal alien problem......


/23/2007 (print version)

Week In Review, February 23, 2007: Gang Crime

News of The Week
Gang Crime

Gang crime is a serious issue that affects the safety of our families
and our children. Gang violence is increasing every day in urban
cities, suburban neighborhoods and in the rural areas of California.

Here is just a few statistics on the growing problem of gang violence:

*

Gang membership has grown in the Los Angeles County region to
40,000 members.
*

In 2006, gang crimes increased by 42% and gang-related homicides
increased 30% in San Fernando Valley.
*

In Los Angeles, 70% of all shootings are related to gangs.
*

In 2006, Ventura has seen a 6% increase in crime. The increase
is blamed on increased gang activity.
*

Gang-related crime continues to spread and grow in suburban
areas of California.

The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave
Heather Mac Donald
EMAIL
RESPOND
PRINT

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens.
Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the
police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their
immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of
a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after
having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly
weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and
know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a
cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who
will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD\u2019s rule
against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD\u2019s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in
immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and
Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These \u201csanctuary
policies\u201d generally prohibit city employees, including the cops,
from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.

Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a
power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even
mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. \u201cWe can\u2019t even talk
about it,\u201d says a frustrated LAPD captain. \u201cPeople are
afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.\u201d Another LAPD commander in a
predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: \u201cI would
get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the
immigration law against illegals].\u201d Neither captain would speak
for attribution.

But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of
a much broader disease: the nation\u2019s near-total loss of control
over immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might
have driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy.
The nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the
law to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and,
ultimately, the very idea of national borders.

It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has
become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime
problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a
police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a
strangled response\u2014or, as in the case of a New York deputy
commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions
of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view,
utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.

I asked the Miami Police Department\u2019s spokesman, Detective
Delrish Moss, about his employer\u2019s policy on lawbreaking
illegals. In September, the force arrested a Honduran visa violator
for seven vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the
suspect in custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without
checking his immigration status. Had they done so, they would have
discovered his visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have
forestalled the rapes. \u201cWe have shied away from unnecessary
involvement dealing with immigration issues,\u201d explains Moss,
choosing his words carefully, \u201cbecause of our large immigrant
population.\u201d

Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the
illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is
startling. Some examples:

\u2022 In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for
homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to
two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal
aliens.

\u2022 A confidential California Department of Justice study reported
in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in
southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is
actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican
Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex
drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and
commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has
grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently
arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and
Mexico.

\u2022 The leadership of the Columbia Lil\u2019 Cycos gang, which uses
murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.\u2019s
MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former
assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia
member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while
serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.

Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime
analysis. The LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an
injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th
Street Gang and the \u201cnon\u2013gang members\u201d who sell drugs
in Hollywood for the gang. Those non\u2013gang members are virtually
all illegal Mexicans, smuggled into the country by a ring organized by
18th Street bigs. The Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to
the gang by selling drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line
of work is and stay in the business.

Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these
non-gang \u201cHollywood dealers,\u201d as the city attorney calls
them, but the gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And
if a Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the
street as a \u201cborder brother\u201d) for his immigration status, or
even notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early
2003, absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would
face severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the city\u2019s
sanctuary policy.

The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted
Special Order 40 in 1979\u2014showing that even the most unapologetic
law-and-order cop is no match for immigration advocates. The order
prohibits officers from \u201cinitiating police action where the
objective is to discover the alien status of a person\u201d\u2014in
other words, the police may not even ask someone they have arrested
about his immigration status until after they have filed criminal
charges, nor may they arrest someone for immigration violations. They
may not notify immigration authorities about an illegal alien picked
up for minor violations. Only if they have already booked an illegal
alien for a felony or for multiple misdemeanors may they inquire into
his status or report him. The bottom line: a cordon sanitaire between
local law enforcement and immigration authorities that creates a safe
haven for illegal criminals.

L.A.\u2019s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key
1990s policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal
behavior. Pick up a law-violator for a \u201cminor\u201d crime, and
you might well prevent a major crime: enforcing graffiti and
turnstile-jumping laws nabs you murderers and robbers. Enforcing known
immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against
known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize
illegal deported gang members all the time\u2014flashing gang signs at
court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or
casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the
country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to
garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are
only committing a misdemeanor). \u201cBut if I see a deportee from the
Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know
I can\u2019t touch him,\u201d laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only
if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop
him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost
him\u2014but not for the immigration felony.

Though such a policy puts the community at risk, the department\u2019s
top brass brush off such concerns. No big deal if you see deported
gangbangers back on the streets, they say. Just put them under
surveillance for \u201creal\u201d crimes and arrest them for those.
But surveillance is very manpower-intensive. Where there is an
immediate ground for getting a violent felon off the street and for
questioning him further, it is absurd to demand that the woefully
understaffed LAPD ignore it.

The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage
illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops
without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegals to take
advantage of city services like health care and education (to whose
maintenance few illegals have contributed a single tax dollar, of
course). There has never been any empirical verification that
sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals\u2014and no one has
ever suggested not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating
drug-using crime victims. But in any case, this official rationale
could be honored by limiting police use of immigration laws to some
subset of immigration violators: deported felons, say, or repeat
criminal offenders whose immigration status police already know.

The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from
immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else
in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown
so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at
the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a
breathtaking Los Angeles Times exposé on the 18th Street Gang, which
included descriptions of innocent bystanders being murdered by
laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-alien
membership in the gang. In response to the public outcry, the Los
Angeles City Council ordered the police to reexamine Special Order 40.
You would have thought it had suggested reconsidering Roe v. Wade. A
police commander warned the council: \u201cThis is going to open a
significant, heated debate.\u201d City Councilwoman Laura Chick put on
a brave front: \u201cWe mustn\u2019t be afraid,\u201d she declared
firmly.

But of course immigrant pandering trumped public safety. Law-abiding
residents of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the
tattooed gangbangers dealing drugs, spraying graffiti, and shooting up
rivals outside their homes, but such anxiety can never equal a
politician\u2019s fear of offending Hispanics. At the start of the
reexamination process, LAPD deputy chief John White had argued that
allowing the department to work closely with the INS would give cops
another tool for getting gang members off the streets. Trying to build
a homicide case, say, against an illegal gang member is often futile,
he explained, since witnesses fear deadly retaliation if they
cooperate with the police. Enforcing an immigration violation would
allow the cops to lock up the murderer right now, without putting a
witness\u2019s life at risk.

But six months later, Deputy Chief White had changed his tune:
\u201cAny broadening of the policy gets us into the immigration
business,\u201d he asserted. \u201cIt\u2019s a federal law-enforcement
issue, not a local law-enforcement issue.\u201d Interim police chief
Bayan Lewis told the L.A. Police Commission: \u201cIt is not the time.
It is not the day to look at Special Order 40.\u201d

Nor will it ever be, as long as immigration numbers continue to grow.
After their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians
have only grown more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After
learning that cops in the scandal-plagued Rampart Division had
cooperated with the INS to try to uproot murderous gang members from
the community, local politicians threw a fit, criticizing district
commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station houses. In
turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers. By now,
big-city police chiefs are unfortunately just as determined to defend
sanctuary policies as the politicians who appoint them; not so the
rank and file, however, who see daily the benefit that an immigration
tool would bring.

Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor
Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend
the city\u2019s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing
that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with
the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed,
with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to
\u201cterrorize people.\u201d Though he lost in court, he remained
defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked
charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require
that its employees keep immigration information confidential to
preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later,
several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack
on the city and the country in history.

New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws
until a gang of five Mexicans\u2014four of them illegal\u2014abducted
and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad
tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal
aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery,
criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The
department had never notified the INS.

On Dec 29, 2:23*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:04:33 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:

Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.
So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....

You still haven't established (a) what that means, or (b) that it's true. *

why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?
At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

Let's see if he can take it one step further. *Because, TMT, people like
David and me are banned from carrying guns, concealed, in public. *Yet
the criminals do, because they're criminals. *Are you starting to see
the tactical disadvantage yet?

Maybe you should go live in a nudist colony?

Then the concealment issue you seem so concerned with is a nonissue.

TMT

On Dec 29, 3:50*pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.

TMT

Can you post a web site that supports this. *"Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. *This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

TMT

On Dec 30, 5:07 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:50 pm, " wrote:

On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.

TMT

Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

TMT

Thanks. Violent crime is down compared to 5 years ago, but up from a
couple of years ago. The wed site I had looked at did not have the
latest data.

Dan

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:50 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.
TMT
Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

Sure I'll take a USA Today story over an official government document.

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:50 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.
TMT
Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

Sure I'll take a USA Today story over an official government document.

Ah, Rex, the USA Today story quotes current FBI/DOJ figures. The link to the
"government document" is to data that's two years old.

For the current "government document," look he

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...ime/index.html

There is a two-year uptick in violent crime. Whether that's a trend or a
blip remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, property crime has been falling for four years:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...ime/index.html

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:50 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.
TMT
Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

Sure I'll take a USA Today story over an official government document.

Ah, Rex, the USA Today story quotes current FBI/DOJ figures. The link to the
"government document" is to data that's two years old.

For the current "government document," look he

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...ime/index.html

There is a two-year uptick in violent crime. Whether that's a trend or a
blip remains to be seen.

Even that doesn't present a completely accurate picture, though, because it
shows absolute numbers of events, not rates. The 2006 rate is slightly less
than the 2003 rate, and noticeably less than the 2002 rate, even though the
absolute numbers are nearly the same -- because the population increased by
almost eleven million people during that period.

(Population figures from http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html)

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

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

It is down across the board based on all crimes on that page -
when looked over a 10 year go.

That integrates the funny times like Hurricanes in LA....

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Rex wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 29, 3:50 pm, " wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:14 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Violent crime is up...not down.
TMT
Can you post a web site that supports this. "Freakanomics" a book
says violent crime is down. This web site also says violent crime is
down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Dan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...24-crime_N.htm

Sure I'll take a USA Today story over an official government document.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:43*pm, Wes wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.

Besides, saloons are no carry zones.

Wes

You don't go to many saloons do you?

No. Guns and booze don't mix.

Wes

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:50:49 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:43*pm, Wes wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.

Besides, saloons are no carry zones.

Wes

You don't go to many saloons do you?

No. Guns and booze don't mix.

Wes

I carry concealed in bars (Iegal here in California), all the time.

However, I dont drink.

Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos shoed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:50:58 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:50:49 -0500, Wes wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:43*pm, Wes wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
Bill screwed up. Guns and booze dont mix, ever.

Besides, saloons are no carry zones.

Wes

You don't go to many saloons do you?

No. Guns and booze don't mix.

Wes

I carry concealed in bars (Iegal here in California), all the time.

However, I dont drink.

Good for you.

"Beware strong drink, for it makes you shoot at tax collectors.
And it makes you miss." Attributed to various Irish/Scottish/Anglican
priests, back In The Day.

tschus
pyotr
--
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 29 2007, 10:41*pm, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:04:52 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:23*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:04:33 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:

Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.
So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....

You still haven't established (a) what that means, or (b) that it's true. *

why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?
At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

Let's see if he can take it one step further. *Because, TMT, people like
David and me are banned from carrying guns, concealed, in public. *Yet
the criminals do, because they're criminals. *Are you starting to see
the tactical disadvantage yet?

Maybe you should go live in a nudist colony?

Then the concealment issue you seem so concerned with is a nonissue.

TMT

No..then I carry in a fanny pack, or man purse.

Been there, done that.

You on the other hand...are ripe fruit for any criminal who decides
you are easy meat.

Hope its soon.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...Well Gunner I assumed that Dave and you carried concealed like
the rest of us...but perhaps in a nudist colony you would carry your
gun concealed "elsewhere". The downside of that approach is that it
must get rather crowded up there with your gun and head in the same
location.

And how would you find it assuming that the sun doesn't shine
there....even in sunny California...

TMT

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 11:38:00 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 29 2007, 10:41*pm, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:04:52 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:23*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:04:33 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:

Too_Small_Tool wrote:

And yet, TMT again ignores the fact that guns aren't causing any
crimes, criminals are. *Until he solves that problem, he has no
place stopping me protecting myself from the criminals.
So Dave...considering that we are awash in guns....

You still haven't established (a) what that means, or (b) that it's true. *

why haven't the
criminals been stopped from committing crimes?
At least you now recognize that the criminal is committing the crime,
not the gun, maybe you CAN learn.

Let's see if he can take it one step further. *Because, TMT, people like
David and me are banned from carrying guns, concealed, in public. *Yet
the criminals do, because they're criminals. *Are you starting to see
the tactical disadvantage yet?

Maybe you should go live in a nudist colony?

Then the concealment issue you seem so concerned with is a nonissue.

TMT

No..then I carry in a fanny pack, or man purse.

Been there, done that.

You on the other hand...are ripe fruit for any criminal who decides
you are easy meat.

Hope its soon.

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL...Well Gunner I assumed that Dave and you carried concealed like
the rest of us...but perhaps in a nudist colony you would carry your
gun concealed "elsewhere". The downside of that approach is that it
must get rather crowded up there with your gun and head in the same
location.

And how would you find it assuming that the sun doesn't shine
there....even in sunny California...

TMT

Its dark in my man purse or fanny pack? Humm..indeed it is.

Gunner