On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA




One assumes you not only dont wear your seat belt, but incourage
others to not wear theirs. And have removed all the batteries from
your residential smoke detectors and have stored away all your fire
extinguishers and first aid kits.

After all..to actually have them at hand, is the sign of paranoia and
an obsession.

Gunner

In article , Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:25:07 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

The continuing bloodshed in this country tells us that this society
needs to change to permit ownership while preventing unnecessary
deaths.


You are refering to the declining bloodshed in this country, ne?

DFTFT

In article , Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:29:27 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:


- Show quoted text -

I understand completely that guns in responsible hands are effective
instruments for keeping peace and curbing violence.

The problem is that many guns are not in responsible hands.

The ever increasing civilian body count is simple evidence of that.

Any solutions?

TMT


Yes, get your facts straight, and dont get them from your favorite
anti-gun organizations.

The "civlian body count" is declining, and has been for a number of
years.

Your ignorance and bias continue to be noted with contempt.

DFTFT

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

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

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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

In my home town of Las Vegas, Nevada, a few years ago, a man dressed in camo
clothing went into an Albertson's grocery store. Started shooting people.
Hunting them down as they hid behind displays. Shot and killed several
people. They caught him, and he's in prison.

It is impossible, but I wonder what they would say to your questions. I
wonder what their family's comments would be. Maybe they're dyed in the
wool pacifists and wouldn't consider carrying a gun, and maybe they're not.

Point is that senseless violence happens every day in every big city and
small hamlet in every country of the world. Whether or not you choose to
take something that might assist you in case of emergency is a personal
choice, and one heavily regulated by the local jurisdiction where you are
that moment.

One of the pictures shown in the news was a person in a fetal position on
his knees on the floor right before a shotgun blast killed him. I can't
say, but I might guess he was wishing he had a gun. Other people had been
killed, and he was trying to hide behind a display of vegetables.

I do know that if I had been there, that it may have all turned out the
same.

Or not.

I do carry pepper spray almost all the time. It is legal, and does not
require all that carrying a weapon does. I like pepper spray because it
shoots about twenty feet, and you don't have to be a good shot to use it.
It then allows you time to retreat. But chances are if you see me, I'll be
packing. And you won't even know it.

Don't worry. If we're in the same store and a gunman starts shooting, I'll
come to your aid. But you can NOT use my gun.

Hey, Bambi. There's lions out there. No ****!

Steve

On Dec 17, 12:22 pm, wrote:

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

I was in Sydney a few years back and felt about as safe as I do in
Seattle. But I was in the King Cross area of town some of the time,
and so did keep an eye out for " bad guys ". There are areas in the
States that are similar to the Kings Cross area, and if I were in
those areas a lot of the time I might feel that carrying a gun was a
good idea. As it is, I do not feel like I need to carry a gun and
have never carried a gun. And the vast majority of us Americans feel
the same way.

But I feel it is perfectly all right if law abiding citizens are
allowed to carry guns.
Why should one worry about law abiding citizens having guns?
Guns are legal in the States and there are a great many guns owned by
the general population. So it would be a huge task to try to collect
all of them. And it such an effort was made, only the law abiding
citizens would comply. It would take years to reduce the guns
available to criminals. So why try. Better to have the bad guys know
that the person they think is an easy mark, could have a gun.

The same logic applies to requiring psych tests to own a gun. Doing
so would create a huge bureaucratic cost, and would have almost no
effect. The money would be better spent on any number of things and
save many more lives.

We are not obsessed with guns. In fact I would say we are less
obsessed than you Austrailians are. We are the ones that think that
guns are perfectly okay to have. We aren't the ones that are worried
about law abiding citizens owning guns.

Another part of the difference might be that you do not have any
dangerous animals around. Last month someone took a picture of a bear
in their back yard about two or three miles from my house. Coyotes
keep the feral cat population in check. And mountain lions have been
seen within a mile of where I used to park my car when I was working.

Dan

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:25:07 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

I am for responsible gun ownership...and with that comes the
accountability for ownership of a firearm.

Yes it does, as with automobiles, flammable substances, or anything
else capable of harming people.

Your opinon may differ from mine.

It might indeed.

Many gun owners want to own without being held accountable.

Some people do not want to be held accountable for their actions.
That's an attribute of the people, not of things they own. Gun owners
in particular are accountable under existing laws whether or not they
want to be.

The continuing bloodshed in this country tells us that this society
needs to change to permit ownership while preventing unnecessary
deaths.

Complete non-sequitur with loaded words. Ample evidence shows that:
1) more laws and controls of objects, substances or things are
clearly ineffective in preventing misuse

2) increased and consistent enforcement of existing laws does indeed
reduce violent crime.

There is no cheap fix. It costs nothing to enact more laws so it's
cheap -- but it fixes nothing. Increased consistent enforcement of
existing laws clearly works, but it isn't cheap. Long-term
encarceration of *all* violent offenders, without exception, is not
cheap and is in some cases not politically expedient. Making more
laws for them to ignore and break won't change that.

Measures intended to curb violent crime must be directed at violent
criminals regardless of the means they may use for violent criminal
behavior. Ample law is in place to do this, we simply lack the will
(or don't want to pay the bill) to make it stick.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 12:22 pm, wrote:

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

I was in Sydney a few years back and felt about as safe as I do in
Seattle. But I was in the King Cross area of town some of the time,
and so did keep an eye out for " bad guys ". There are areas in the
States that are similar to the Kings Cross area, and if I were in
those areas a lot of the time I might feel that carrying a gun was a
good idea. As it is, I do not feel like I need to carry a gun and
have never carried a gun. And the vast majority of us Americans feel
the same way.

Andrew may be interested that the percentage of adults who have permits to
carry handguns in the "shall issue" states, which are the ones where it's
easiest to get a carry permit, averages just over 2%. The actual percentage
who carry at any given time probably is much smaller than that, but I've not
seen reliable data about it.


But I feel it is perfectly all right if law abiding citizens are
allowed to carry guns.
Why should one worry about law abiding citizens having guns?
Guns are legal in the States and there are a great many guns owned by
the general population.

About 90 for every 100 citizens.

So it would be a huge task to try to collect
all of them. And it such an effort was made, only the law abiding
citizens would comply. It would take years to reduce the guns
available to criminals. So why try. Better to have the bad guys know
that the person they think is an easy mark, could have a gun.

The same logic applies to requiring psych tests to own a gun. Doing
so would create a huge bureaucratic cost, and would have almost no
effect. The money would be better spent on any number of things and
save many more lives.

Keep in mind that mental health records are checked in our "instant
background check" system, in which, IIRC, 23 states supply mental health
records. To the extent we're in for more gun control, expect that large
loophole to be among the first that is closed.


We are not obsessed with guns. In fact I would say we are less
obsessed than you Austrailians are. We are the ones that think that
guns are perfectly okay to have. We aren't the ones that are worried
about law abiding citizens owning guns.

Another part of the difference might be that you do not have any
dangerous animals around. Last month someone took a picture of a bear
in their back yard about two or three miles from my house. Coyotes
keep the feral cat population in check. And mountain lions have been
seen within a mile of where I used to park my car when I was working.

I think that's a very small percentage of people who carry guns in the US.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.

Andrew VK3BFA

Doug Miller wrote:

DFTFT

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

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


It's time to throw all the damned trolls in the harbor. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

The problem is that many guns are not in responsible hands.

Most irresponsible hands are paid by the govt

The ever increasing civilian body count is simple evidence of that.

The percentage of gun deaths is dropping while the population is rising.

Any solutions?

Less government. Vote for Ron Paul

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

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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)


Are you saying that it's better to not carry a gun, and let the "bad
guy" gets the drop on you, and kill you? Do you undersand what "Get the
drop on" means?






--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

Needs to be? No. Should be legally allowed to be, if they choose to
be, and have no legal history prohibiting same? Hell yes.

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

At least I wasn't denied a fair chance at defending myself, if that
happens. I had some chance vs. zero chance.

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you "paranoid" for having a spare tire in your car?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

Frequent enough that if I need it, I'd rather have it than be banned
from using it if needed, yes. Non-zero risk.

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Because, our leftist politicians value rehabilitating people who commit
crimes, more than the rights and safety of those of us who have never
done anything wrong. Until that changes, denying those of us who are
not criminals from protecting ourselves from known criminals, only
benefits the bad people.

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:02:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:22 pm, wrote:

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

I was in Sydney a few years back and felt about as safe as I do in
Seattle. But I was in the King Cross area of town some of the time,
and so did keep an eye out for " bad guys ". There are areas in the
States that are similar to the Kings Cross area, and if I were in
those areas a lot of the time I might feel that carrying a gun was a
good idea.

The only time I ever felt physically in danger, was in London, north of
Piccadilly Circus into Soho a bit. We went one block too far, and there
was a gang of not-happy-looking folks to our left, and another to our
right, both converging on us. Me, and the former US Marine in the
group, both understood the situation and explained, quite quickly, that
we needed to get out of there. The other 5 guys were oblivious. We all
left, with 5 people thinking Steve and me were paranoid.

I'm fine with that.

As it is, I do not feel like I need to carry a gun and
have never carried a gun. And the vast majority of us Americans feel
the same way.

Of course. Andrew and his type can rely on you and me to protect him,
even if he doesn't understand us.

Guns are legal in the States and there are a great many guns owned by
the general population. So it would be a huge task to try to collect
all of them. And it such an effort was made, only the law abiding
citizens would comply.

Of course!

It would take years to reduce the guns
available to criminals. So why try. Better to have the bad guys know
that the person they think is an easy mark, could have a gun.

There you go using logic and facts again. You may be annoying Andrew.
You should care more about how he may _feel_ about this, rather than
presenting logic and facts, Don. How inconsiderate of you.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

Needs to be? No. Should be legally allowed to be, if they choose to
be, and have no legal history prohibiting same? Hell yes.

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

At least I wasn't denied a fair chance at defending myself, if that
happens. I had some chance vs. zero chance.

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you "paranoid" for having a spare tire in your car?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

Frequent enough that if I need it, I'd rather have it than be banned
from using it if needed, yes. Non-zero risk.

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Because, our leftist politicians value rehabilitating people who commit
crimes, more than the rights and safety of those of us who have never
done anything wrong. Until that changes, denying those of us who are
not criminals from protecting ourselves from known criminals, only
benefits the bad people.

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.


Kudos, Sir.

Steve

On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.



Andrew VK3BFA

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

And I wasn't aware of the stats either - I had imagined that most of
you were able to carry concealed weapons rather than the 2% quoted.
And that was a terrifying prospect. The media again, I guess.

You've let the genie out of the bottle - you cant get rid of the guns,
you cope with it as best you can. And, as you say, the massacres get
the news - because their horrible. It does seem to happen several
times a year at least - I don't know of any other Western country
where it does.

With, I can recall, only 4 exceptions in our 200 year history, we
don't have the same problems here, because we don't have a history of
a gun culture like you guys do.

My reaction was horror, that you people are living in this horrible
situation where gun massacres seem all too commonplace. My
commiserations on your tragic loss of life - and if it was simple to
fix, it would have been done by now. As as evidenced by the number of
posts on this topic, most people have some sort of solution. I dont.

Andrew VK3BFA.

(I await a Gunner RANT of obscure internet references to prove me
totally wrong - his last references to seatbelts, smoke alarm
batteries, spare tyres was MAGNIFICENT in its intellectual rigor and
subject relevance..Please Gunner, speak, I beseech thee, that I might
learn from one so...........)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

Not the entire population, just a non-zero fraction of them. And a
policeman or security guard still counts, if they are allowed to carry
their weapon legally while off duty and doing their grocery shopping.

If there are 50 people in the grocery store when a criminal decides
to conduct a robbery, it only takes one armed and pro-active citizen
to stop it. Two or three would be a bonus, in case the perp tries to
fight back.

And it can't hurt if an un-armed yet alert and aware citizen takes
other active steps available to them, like hanging back in the shadows
or duck into the back room for cover, and quietly call the police on a
mobile phone. Get them rolling, and get the dispatcher a full and
accurate description of the criminal(s) and what's going on.

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Some people simply don't have the temperament to pull that trigger
in an emergency, and they should not be carrying a weapon - those are
the ones who could be overpowered before they got the nerve to fire,
and their own weapon be used against them.

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

No, and I'm not in a 'combat ready' state like that - but armed or
not, you have to be at a slightly elevated state at all times when out
in public, aware of your surroundings and what's going on in the world
around you. Keeping proper Situation Awareness is the best way to not
get in trouble like that in the first place.

not perfectly what I want, but adequate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness

It's that feeling of "It's quiet - TOO quiet..." or "Someone's
watching me..." When that feeling triggers, /then/ you notch your
alert level up higher and find out why. Might well be nothing at all,
but you need to find out.

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.

Television News Rule #1: If it bleeds, it leads.

And if you are the anti-gun lobby you pick the nastiest possible
incidents to push your agenda. There are many sympathetic news
reporters eager to help you push thee "Guns Are Bad" agenda. You will
note that the media does not point out all the times that an armed
citizen stopped an incident cold in it's tracks.

They don't report on all the times when a crook brandishes a weapon
at the store clerk and announces "This is a Robbery!!" And a citizen
in line behind him quietly screws a 9MM into the crook's left ear and
firmly and calmly says "No, it isn't..." and he's right. Crook drops
his weapon.

They don't report on all the times where there are criminals openly
stalking a pedestrian or disabled motorist like hyenas circling their
prey - and said potential victim chooses to expose the fact that they
are armed, whereupon the perps magically evaporate.

The power of "Acute Lead Poisoning"...

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

It's not "awash", just the figure is non-zero. Big difference.

And I wasn't aware of the stats either - I had imagined that most of
you were able to carry concealed weapons rather than the 2% quoted.
And that was a terrifying prospect. The media again, I guess.

There are some cities or counties that make it very difficult (or
impossible for all practical purposes) to get a Concealed Carry Weapon
permit - and those also tend to be the higher crime areas, with much
higher assault rates against the disarmed (by local law) populace...

It's easy to chart the correlation.

City of Los Angeles has a 6-Million population, and under 100 CCW
permits. And if you don't have a LOT of political pull, you aren't
one of them.

Probably why a lot of people working as bodyguards and security live
in rural counties where the permits are issued much more readily, and
commute into L.A. for work purposes.

Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell rail against the evils of guns -
and then they employ armed bodyguards. Hypocrisy, anyone?

You've let the genie out of the bottle - you cant get rid of the guns,
you cope with it as best you can. And, as you say, the massacres get
the news - because their horrible. It does seem to happen several
times a year at least - I don't know of any other Western country
where it does.

With, I can recall, only 4 exceptions in our 200 year history, we
don't have the same problems here, because we don't have a history of
a gun culture like you guys do.

No, you (The UKoGBaNI) have a history of serfdom and fealty to the
Monarchy and a caste system of lords and barons.

We (The US) tossed that whole mindset straight out the window and
colonized untamed lands, where a large portion of the population
needed to be totally self-sufficient. Including self-defense.

Mountain lions, black bears and grizzly bears, wolverines, buffalo,
poisonous snakes. Not to mention bandits and cattle rustlers. And
the nearest law enforcement weeks away if you can find them at all -
some places one person for thousands of square miles...

My reaction was horror, that you people are living in this horrible
situation where gun massacres seem all too commonplace. My
commiserations on your tragic loss of life - and if it was simple to
fix, it would have been done by now. As as evidenced by the number of
posts on this topic, most people have some sort of solution. I dont.

You have massacres too, just not on the same scale. Look at the
terror bombing incidents around London - Not on the same scale as WTC,
but a whole lot more of them, and in the aggregate just as deadly.

(I await a Gunner RANT of obscure internet references to prove me
totally wrong - his last references to seatbelts, smoke alarm
batteries, spare tyres was MAGNIFICENT in its intellectual rigor and
subject relevance..Please Gunner, speak, I beseech thee, that I might
learn from one so...........)

No fire breathing rants from here today, but some reasoning. No
matter how "civilized" any country becomes (or likes to delude
themselves and THINK they are...), the police cannot be everywhere and
pro-actively protect everyone - by their mandate they can only react
after the event.

The UKoGBaNI tried to foster the fiction of "we're so civilized that
even our Bobbies don't need to be armed." Well, that actually worked
for quite a while, but the wheels have fallen off that cart with a
resounding crash...

Some US citizens choose to take active steps where they can take
matters into their own hands, and have the ability to either stop the
event in the process, or proactively stop it in the formative stages.

If the criminal is armed, often the only way to counter that is to
be armed yourself - "Never take a knife to a gunfight."

You can't effectively counter a ranged weapon like a gun with a
close-combat weapon like a knife or fists, they have the advantage of
"reach" that you don't. It's possible to talk or fight your way out
of a bad incident, but it's not the preferred method and your odds of
failure are vastly increased.

And if the criminal knows that some of the populace that he may
choose to assault may themselves be armed and able to protect their
interests, and the odds of a bad outcome (criminal ending up dead) are
high, he'll go find another line of work that isn't as hazardous.

The ones that don't have the smarts to figure that one out usually
end up dead, or in jail for the majority of their lives.

-- Bruce --

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:13:40 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:


No, and I'm not in a 'combat ready' state like that - but armed or
not, you have to be at a slightly elevated state at all times when out
in public, aware of your surroundings and what's going on in the world
around you. Keeping proper Situation Awareness is the best way to not
get in trouble like that in the first place.

not perfectly what I want, but adequate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness

http://www.teddytactical.com/Sharpen...0Awareness.htm




http://www.dynamicalternatives.co.za...whatColour.htm
What Colour

Who is Jeff Cooper?

Marine Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper

What are Jeff Cooper's Colour Codes?

Jeff Coopers color codes are a series of 5 colors, each one marking a
specific state of awareness in the continues relationship between
ourselves and our environment.

These colors are designed for us to understand the escalation of
threat during a possible attack scenario and it’s effect on us.

1. WHITE:
When you are home watching television, sleep-walking, totally
unaware of your surroundings. Unfortunately, this is where most of the
population spends its time. This is having the "victim" mentality.

2. YELLOW:
Now you are aware of your surroundings. You are relaxed but
alert. You anticipate, rather than expect, something to happen. You
are simply prepared.

3. ORANGE:
Now you are aware of something specific in your surroundings
that has caught your attention. Perhaps it will be a threat. You
analyse the threat potential and potential risks to you and others.

4. RED:
You are ready to do what needs to be done. You may decide to
move in or back off, depending on the circumstance. But do you have a
plan? If you don't, you'll probably lose, unless Lady Luck is sitting
in your corner. If you do, your reaction will be quick and sure.

5. BLACK: (added by M. Ayoob)
You've got no choice. An assault is in progress. A state of all
out war. You must go from White (totally unaware) to Black (he shoots)
in a fraction of a second. If you haven't followed the crucial
self-training of always anticipating an attack, you add to the sad
statistics. With anticipation comes preparedness. It is critical to
your survival that your own attitude is to be prepared when your
wildest anticipation comes true.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.



Andrew VK3BFA

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

And I wasn't aware of the stats either - I had imagined that most of
you were able to carry concealed weapons rather than the 2% quoted.
And that was a terrifying prospect. The media again, I guess.

You've let the genie out of the bottle - you cant get rid of the guns,
you cope with it as best you can. And, as you say, the massacres get
the news - because their horrible. It does seem to happen several
times a year at least - I don't know of any other Western country
where it does.

With, I can recall, only 4 exceptions in our 200 year history, we
don't have the same problems here, because we don't have a history of
a gun culture like you guys do.

My reaction was horror, that you people are living in this horrible
situation where gun massacres seem all too commonplace. My
commiserations on your tragic loss of life - and if it was simple to
fix, it would have been done by now. As as evidenced by the number of
posts on this topic, most people have some sort of solution. I dont.

We don't either. d8-) There are two issues at work and they often conflict.
One is the social issue, which doesn't have easy solutions. The other is the
personal issue, that of a right to self-defense, which can be solved
philosophically if not always physically.

If you're interested enough to read a well-written and important (to us)
discussion of the philosophy behind it, you might want to read this article
written by a lawyer, which appeared in a policy journal back in '93. It
created quite a buzz at the time:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

It's titled "A Nation of Cowards." He was referring to us. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

It's not "awash", just the figure is non-zero. Big difference.

Well, yeah, we're awash. The estimates run from a low of 223 million (DOJ)
to 290 million. You're mixing up the number of guns in the US with the
number of people who are carrying concealed, I think.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

On Dec 18, 8:13 am, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

Not the entire population, just a non-zero fraction of them. And a
policeman or security guard still counts, if they are allowed to carry
their weapon legally while off duty and doing their grocery shopping.

If there are 50 people in the grocery store when a criminal decides
to conduct a robbery, it only takes one armed and pro-active citizen
to stop it. Two or three would be a bonus, in case the perp tries to
fight back.

And it can't hurt if an un-armed yet alert and aware citizen takes
other active steps available to them, like hanging back in the shadows
or duck into the back room for cover, and quietly call the police on a
mobile phone. Get them rolling, and get the dispatcher a full and
accurate description of the criminal(s) and what's going on.

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Some people simply don't have the temperament to pull that trigger
in an emergency, and they should not be carrying a weapon - those are
the ones who could be overpowered before they got the nerve to fire,
and their own weapon be used against them.

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

No, and I'm not in a 'combat ready' state like that - but armed or
not, you have to be at a slightly elevated state at all times when out
in public, aware of your surroundings and what's going on in the world
around you. Keeping proper Situation Awareness is the best way to not
get in trouble like that in the first place.

not perfectly what I want, but adequate:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_awareness

It's that feeling of "It's quiet - TOO quiet..." or "Someone's
watching me..." When that feeling triggers, /then/ you notch your
alert level up higher and find out why. Might well be nothing at all,
but you need to find out.





Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.

Television News Rule #1: If it bleeds, it leads.

And if you are the anti-gun lobby you pick the nastiest possible
incidents to push your agenda. There are many sympathetic news
reporters eager to help you push thee "Guns Are Bad" agenda. You will
note that the media does not point out all the times that an armed
citizen stopped an incident cold in it's tracks.

They don't report on all the times when a crook brandishes a weapon
at the store clerk and announces "This is a Robbery!!" And a citizen
in line behind him quietly screws a 9MM into the crook's left ear and
firmly and calmly says "No, it isn't..." and he's right. Crook drops
his weapon.

They don't report on all the times where there are criminals openly
stalking a pedestrian or disabled motorist like hyenas circling their
prey - and said potential victim chooses to expose the fact that they
are armed, whereupon the perps magically evaporate.

The power of "Acute Lead Poisoning"...

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

It's not "awash", just the figure is non-zero. Big difference.

And I wasn't aware of the stats either - I had imagined that most of
you were able to carry concealed weapons rather than the 2% quoted.
And that was a terrifying prospect. The media again, I guess.

There are some cities or counties that make it very difficult (or
impossible for all practical purposes) to get a Concealed Carry Weapon
permit - and those also tend to be the higher crime areas, with much
higher assault rates against the disarmed (by local law) populace...

It's easy to chart the correlation.

City of Los Angeles has a 6-Million population, and under 100 CCW
permits. And if you don't have a LOT of political pull, you aren't
one of them.

Probably why a lot of people working as bodyguards and security live
in rural counties where the permits are issued much more readily, and
commute into L.A. for work purposes.

Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell rail against the evils of guns -
and then they employ armed bodyguards. Hypocrisy, anyone?

You've let the genie out of the bottle - you cant get rid of the guns,
you cope with it as best you can. And, as you say, the massacres get
the news - because their horrible. It does seem to happen several
times a year at least - I don't know of any other Western country
where it does.

With, I can recall, only 4 exceptions in our 200 year history, we
don't have the same problems here, because we don't have a history of
a gun culture like you guys do.

No, you (The UKoGBaNI) have a history of serfdom and fealty to the
Monarchy and a caste system of lords and barons.

We (The US) tossed that whole mindset straight out the window and
colonized untamed lands, where a large portion of the population
needed to be totally self-sufficient. Including self-defense.

Mountain lions, black bears and grizzly bears, wolverines, buffalo,
poisonous snakes. Not to mention bandits and cattle rustlers. And
the nearest law enforcement weeks away if you can find them at all -
some places one person for thousands of square miles...

My reaction was horror, that you people are living in this horrible
situation where gun massacres seem all too commonplace. My
commiserations on your tragic loss of life - and if it was simple to
fix, it would have been done by now. As as evidenced by the number of
posts on this topic, most people have some sort of solution. I dont.

You have massacres too, just not on the same scale. Look at the
terror bombing incidents around London - Not on the same scale as WTC,
but a whole lot more of them, and in the aggregate just as deadly.

(I await a Gunner RANT of obscure internet references to prove me
totally wrong - his last references to seatbelts, smoke alarm
batteries, spare tyres was MAGNIFICENT in its intellectual rigor and
subject relevance..Please Gunner, speak, I beseech thee, that I might
learn from one so...........)

No fire breathing rants from here today, but some reasoning. No
matter how "civilized" any country becomes (or likes to delude
themselves and THINK they are...), the police cannot be everywhere and
pro-actively protect everyone - by their mandate they can only react
after the event.

The UKoGBaNI tried to foster the fiction of "we're so civilized that
even our Bobbies don't need to be armed." Well, that actually worked
for quite a while, but the wheels have fallen off that cart with a
resounding crash...

Some US citizens choose to take active steps where they can take
matters into their own hands, and have the ability to either stop the
event in the process, or proactively stop it in the formative stages.

If the criminal is armed, often the only way to counter that is to
be armed yourself - "Never take a knife to a gunfight."

You can't effectively counter a ranged weapon like a gun with a
close-combat weapon like a knife or fists, they have the advantage of
"reach" that you don't. It's possible to talk or fight your way out
of a bad incident, but it's not the preferred method and your odds of
failure are vastly increased.

And if the criminal knows that some of the populace that he may
choose to assault may themselves be armed and able to protect their
interests, and the odds of a bad outcome (criminal ending up dead) are
high, he'll go find another line of work that isn't as hazardous.

The ones that don't have the smarts to figure that one out usually
end up dead, or in jail for the majority of their lives.

-- Bruce --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Great post Bruce.

The present situation in England of "slashers" points-up
the differences between our countries.

As all know, the rate of personal violence in England
(not including homicides) is about 3 times the rate in
the U.S. I'm not sure, but I feel the English have be-
come more or less inured to a situation citizens in
the U.S. would find totally unacceptable. In the U.S.
citizens believe they have a right to protect themselves
and their families; in England citizens depend on
their government (as they have for centuries).
I would depict the English (and in fact many others)
as counting on, what I call, "The Sardine Factor."

Anyone familiar with TV nature programs may have
seen shows depicting the method sardines use to
survive in the presence of sharks and other predators:
The school forms into a ball and allows the predators
to consume the members near the outer edge. I
imagine, if sardines could talk, they'd be saying "I
hope it's not me, I hope it's not me" while watching
as other members are killed and eaten. This _is_
the reality of life when the government won't allow
you the means to defend yourself.

In the U.S. some of us feel it's ok to have teeth instead
of waiting passively for our turn to be eaten. Anything
else would be ludicrous. And yet folks in England
and many other countries think this is the correct
way to live. How they've been duped into believing
theirs is the correct way to live baffles me, but I know
I, and many other citizens of the United States believe
this is not the way for free people to live; and we're in
no hurry to change.

To all our friends in England: I hope your turn doesn't
come-up any time soon. Try to get near the center of
the ball.

dennis
in nca

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns?

The vast majority of us aren't. A few that are make a great deal of
noise. About half the households in MN have at least one gun,
percentages are higher in rural areas. You never hear a peep about it
from most of those folks who enjoy hunting or shooting sports. Only 1%
to 2% of the population of MN have carry permits, and most of those I
know that have them don't carry routinely.



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Sensational media to sell TV time and paper is part of it. People
aren't afraid of bridges, even though many are injured when one
collapses. Far more are killed by drunk drivers than by guns every
year, but that doesn't make good ink. And so on.



Andrew VK3BFA

Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me. The gun advocates
response to this is to counter force with force, and from that point
of view, it makes perfect sense.

Prior to 1920, the UK was "awash in firearms", yet murders were
exceedingly rare.

And I wasn't aware of the stats either - I had imagined that most of
you were able to carry concealed weapons rather than the 2% quoted.
And that was a terrifying prospect. The media again, I guess.

45 of the 50 States have laws allowing one to obtain a Concealed
Weapons Permit, fairly easily. Yet few (relatively speaking) avail
themselves of one, for various reasons. Mostly because they live in
very low crime areas and already have arms close to hand.

You've let the genie out of the bottle - you cant get rid of the guns,
you cope with it as best you can. And, as you say, the massacres get
the news - because their horrible. It does seem to happen several
times a year at least - I don't know of any other Western country
where it does.

Son..the genie has always been out of the bottle. You put a stopper in
yours after 1920..and your crime rate has continued to rise like an
elevator, while ours today, is falling like a rock.

With, I can recall, only 4 exceptions in our 200 year history, we
don't have the same problems here, because we don't have a history of
a gun culture like you guys do.

There have been many many exceptions in the UK, but indeed, far far
fewer than the US. Even when firearms were readily available to the
public in the UK and concealed carry was nearly universal.

It has nothing to do with firearms themselves, but the culture. It it
were the firearms themselves, Canada, Norway, Finland and a host of
other countries nearly as well armed as the US would have similar
shootings. They dont.


My reaction was horror, that you people are living in this horrible
situation where gun massacres seem all too commonplace. My
commiserations on your tragic loss of life - and if it was simple to
fix, it would have been done by now. As as evidenced by the number of
posts on this topic, most people have some sort of solution. I dont.

Define "all to commonplace"? You have had mass killings by various
means, swords, bombs etc.

Until just recently, the largest mass killing in the US involved a
single gallon of gasoline. The largest in UShistory, involved
airplanes.

Andrew VK3BFA.

(I await a Gunner RANT of obscure internet references to prove me
totally wrong - his last references to seatbelts, smoke alarm
batteries, spare tyres was MAGNIFICENT in its intellectual rigor and
subject relevance..Please Gunner, speak, I beseech thee, that I might
learn from one so...........)

Put your bias aside for a moment, as difficult as I imagine it may be
for you.

Why would you have, seat belts, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and
first aid kits in your home or vehicle?

Are you expecting a fire or injury or auto accident? Very very few
people ever experience such in their lives. Since they are
exceedingly rare, is it paranoid to have them around or to use them?

By your criteria, it would appear to be so.

Others, from the Government, to Insurance companies, to the homeowner
or driver themselves, think that while rare....the lack of the above
tools on hand, is really bad. And indeed, it is. Its not always the
risks, but the stakes.

If you screw up, and set the shop afire, or mum sets the stove top
afire..the lack of a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors may cost
you everything you own, including your or your families lives. Ive
not had a fire ever (knock on wood), yet you will not catch me, or any
thinking person claiming that its paranoia to have smoke detectors and
extinguishers about the home or business. But why? Afterall...fires
are exceedingly rare!

Seatbelts. Ive only been involved in one moderate vehicle accident,
some 35 yrs and perhaps 6 million miles of driving. So why should I
or anyone else bother with them? Same with seat belts on aircraft. I
have actually been in 2 air crashes, but they were shoot downs in
combat, so why should I bother wearing a seat belt while flying a
commercial or private airplane? To do so, by your criteria, would be
utter paranoia. Afterall, flying is about the safest mode of
transportation.

My choice to regularly carry a firearm on my person, is no different
than my choice to wear a seat belt, or have a fire extinguisher at
hand, or smoke detectors etc. Its just another tool to be used in a
"just in case" mode. Frankly..carrying a firearm is quite
uncomfortable, inconvienent and a pain in the ass.
However...I have had occasion to present my weapon 6 times in the
course of the last 30+ yrs. Never yet have I been actually been
forced to fire a shot, but that was because I was lucky, and was able
to defuse the situation BECAUSE the bad people decided that pressing
on with their business, would end in their death or serious injury.

In no case above, did I ever 'go looking for trouble". Hardly. Im far
more aware of what such behavior may bring, than most, having once
been a police officer.

Im about the most lovable harmless fuzzball one can imagine. Yet
trouble came looking for me. Discussions of the events are available
on the net, google groups, gunner+fresno+ knife for some of them.
Shrug

I have spent 25+ years living with the Color Codes formost in my world
view, so that may have something to do with both my lack of motor
vehicle accidents, being victim of bad people and so forth.

As for obscure cites...what may be obscure to a Brit, may well be
common in the US. Speaking of obscure...ask any American what Test
Cricket is and is it popular?

G Yet at least one nation is mad about it.

Now you can turn your obvious bias back on and go on another snit.

G

Gunner

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:37:50 -0800 (PST), rigger
wrote:

As all know, the rate of personal violence in England
(not including homicides) is about 3 times the rate in
the U.S. I'm not sure, but I feel the English have be-
come more or less inured to a situation citizens in
the U.S. would find totally unacceptable. In the U.S.
citizens believe they have a right to protect themselves
and their families; in England citizens depend on
their government (as they have for centuries).
I would depict the English (and in fact many others)
as counting on, what I call, "The Sardine Factor."


"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions". Christopher Morton

"In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power."

Theodore Dalrymple

Gunner

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:



Thank you, Don, for your courteous reply. I think I have figured it
out, - for whatever reasons, you Americans have a country thats awash
with firearms, and so there are going to be incidents that would
probably horrify you people as much as they do me.

You sound like the media you've been reading or watching!

Stats do indicate that there are a lot of guns in the U.S., but "awash
with firearms"? If we are so awash, why have I never in my 65 years
seen one outside of military service, a store, range, worn by a law
enforcement officer or guard or in the hands of hunters or
responsible shooters?

Your "awash" declaimers seem to overlook the fact that many if not
most of these are long guns used for hunting and sport shooting. Deer
hunting, bird hunting (ducks, upland game birds) and sporting clays
are all very popular activities. In some states the opening day of
deer season is a very big deal. These guns are not used in massacres
or in the commission of crimes. They spend much of their time in
closets and safes.

Other countries also have a high percentage of gun ownership:
Switzerland and Finland to name two. Far more guns, handguns in
particular, are manufactured outside of the U.S. than are made here.

Nuts and psychos do appear now and then. Some use guns, others use
bombs, fire, etc. The incidence of nuts has nothing to do with
availability of guns or anything else -- except perhaps drugs. Some
do what they do to "make a statement", and nothing gets media
attention quite like a shootup. Guns are trivialized to those who
don't know any better by prime time TV programming, and then demonized
an hour later in the news report. "Extreme combat" computer games are
very popular with those who'd cross the street rather than pass a
recruiting office.

The first amendment protects freedom of speech to conduct such
irresponsible sensationalism for profit. We need the second amendment
to protect ourselves from the few who actually believe all that crap!

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:01:43 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:



Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Thanks, Don & SteveB.

Dave

On Dec 19, 5:15 am, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:37:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 18, 6:50 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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.

Put your bias aside for a moment, as difficult as I imagine it may be
for you.

No. I enjoy illogical non factual rants to reinforce my long held
prejudices. And honesty enuff to admit it.

Why would you have, seat belts, smoke alarms, fire extinguishers and
first aid kits in your home or vehicle?

Are you expecting a fire or injury or auto accident? Very very few
people ever experience such in their lives. Since they are
exceedingly rare, is it paranoid to have them around or to use them?

By your criteria, it would appear to be so.

Fire alarms - if I go off my brain in the mall, can I pull out my fire
alarm and kill people with it. No. A gun would be better.
Seat belts - they have been compulsory here since the 1970's. Rate of
fatal car crashes has declined by 50% per head of population. I
suppose I could unbolt the seat belt from my car and ram it down
someones throat and so kill them....but a gun would be better.

There was something else, but its getting too unwieldy to track back
and see what it was.

Others, from the Government, to Insurance companies, to the homeowner
or driver themselves, think that while rare....the lack of the above
tools on hand, is really bad. And indeed, it is. Its not always the
risks, but the stakes.

If you screw up, and set the shop afire, or mum sets the stove top
afire..the lack of a fire extinguisher and smoke detectors may cost
you everything you own, including your or your families lives.

But a gun in my hand will not prevent this.....so what precisely is
your logic Gunner - I have my philosophy 101 textbook here somewhere,
if you like, I will dig out the section on illogical conclusions from
a sound premise...

Seatbelts. Ive only been involved in one moderate vehicle accident,
some 35 yrs and perhaps 6 million miles of driving. So why should I
or anyone else bother with them? Same with seat belts on aircraft. I
have actually been in 2 air crashes, but they were shoot downs in
combat, so why should I bother wearing a seat belt while flying a
commercial or private airplane? To do so, by your criteria, would be
utter paranoia. After all, flying is about the safest mode of
transportation.

Agreed - and congratulations on surviving the car crash and the
shootdowns. I havent been shot down, but a seatbelt enabled me to
survive a horrific car crash. Sure, I got a broken collar bone,
cracked ribs, and a bung knee - the first two from the seatbelt, the
last from my knee hitting a steel sub panel under the dash. So, does
that even out the seatbelt/no seatbelt argument? - you were lucky, I
was not.

My choice to regularly carry a firearm on my person, is no different
than my choice to wear a seat belt, or have a fire extinguisher at
hand, or smoke detectors etc. Its just another tool to be used in a
"just in case" mode.

OK, assuming you not some crazed PTSD vet who holds extreme views, is
slightly nutty, and may go off his brain sometime and shoot someone....
(with his smoke detector) - this probably isnt you, but can you vouch
for the rest of the population?.

Gunner, its the sheer number of guns in the US thats the issue - thats
the only point I wanted to make.

Yes, we have violent crime here, and its increasing. The use of knives
is increasing, almost certainly because the perps cant get guns. We
have largely controlled them. Shooting crimes are rare. Even the
domestic "crime of passion" using Granpas old shotgun from the back of
the wardrobe is getting rare. Kids killed by getting access to
firearms is also very rare.

people kill people - and if they have access to guns, they can do it
more efficiently and in larger numbers.




As for obscure cites...what may be obscure to a Brit, may well be
common in the US. Speaking of obscure...ask any American what Test
Cricket is and is it popular?

Your probably correct - I have no interest in test cricket, its an
unimaginably boring game that can go for 3 days and result in a draw.
I don't understand it. Likewise, I don't have the cultural background
to understand the gun thing.

G Yet at least one nation is mad about it.

true. other nations are mad about guns..I dont understand that either.

Now you can turn your obvious bias back on and go on another snit.

nah. But will shut up, its obviously pointless. Will stick to
metalwork.

Andrew VK3BFA.


G

Gunner

On Dec 19, 12:53 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:01:43 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Dec 19, 1:15 am, wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:53 pm, Dave Hinz wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:01:43 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Andrew, what you are hearing are the rants and ravings of the paranoid
in regards to guns in America.

They do not represent the norm in this Country.

The vast majority of Americans never consider carrying a concealed
weapon even while owning them for sport or hunting...it simply is not
needed.

There are those in any society who while owning a gun should never be
allowed to use them...an example would be our Vice President Dick
"Shoot Them In The Face" Cheney.

I personally own many firearms and have never felt the need to carry
concealed.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Andrew, what you are hearing are the rants and ravings of the paranoid
in regards to guns in America.

They do not represent the norm in this Country.

The vast majority of Americans never consider carrying a concealed
weapon even while owning them for sport or hunting...it simply is not
needed.

There are those in any society who while owning a gun should never be
allowed to use them...an example would be our Vice President Dick
"Shoot Them In The Face" Cheney.

I personally own many firearms and have never felt the need to carry
concealed.

TMT


I won't make a habit of it, but I completely agree hee.

Richard

On Dec 18, 3:24 am, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

One assumes you not only dont wear your seat belt, but incourage
others to not wear theirs. And have removed all the batteries from
your residential smoke detectors and have stored away all your fire
extinguishers and first aid kits.

After all..to actually have them at hand, is the sign of paranoia and
an obsession.

Gunner

.. Well. I remembered what the last thing Gunner mentioned - it was the
fire extinguisher, and how if you don't have a gun, a fire
extinguisher is no good to you.

On the face of it, this is a nonsensical statement - but I thought,
mm, there must be a logic here I cant understand, after all, Gunners
views are similar to many other pro-gun people here, they cannot all
be nutters. Besides, no one has beaten him to death yet, so he cant be
too bad....In GunnerLand, things are simple, so I came up with this
amplification of Gunners fire extinguisher beliefs, based directly on
my own life experiences.

When I got married, many years ago, I hadn't realised that my lovely
wife had a tendency to set fire to the kitchen. This has happened
twice, and both times I was able to put the fire out, then rebuild the
kitchen. After the first one, I counselled here on this extensively,
stressed the need to be safety conscious and not walk away from the
chip pan and start having long phone conversations with her
girlfriends. I thought I had got my point across, she promised it
would not happen again.

After the second time, I decided more drastic efforts were needed. In
GunnerLand, the solution would have been simple, expeditious, and
direct. Shoot her - she was a proven danger to my life, and the lives
of others. Ergo, I had a Right to shoot her in Self Defence. She was
an unlicensed person who had, somehow, in spite of all the checks and
balances, manged to get hold of a kitchen and was behaving in a
dangerous manner.

But, call me a sentimental softy, I couldn't do this - besides, she is
a great cook and good with the kids.

So I went and bought a fire extinguisher and a fire blanket. This
proved to be a total solution, the mere presence of them on the
kitchen wall has averted any more incidents. And my wife is still
here.

So, my conclusions. You don't NEED to carry a gun and be prepared to
use it, a fire extinguisher will do just as well. I have proved this
beyond reasonable doubt (see above - no lie) - just the very presence
of a fire extinguisher will avert any life threatening situations.

I rest my case. Its entirely consistent with the logic of the group.

Andrew VK3BFA.

In article , wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:53 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:01:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

You only think you don't.

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

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

"SteveB" wrote:

We're thinking of changing to Miracle Whip Low Fat Lite, though.


Just don't use Miracle Whip Free. That would be kinky.

Wes

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Unable..or unwilling... to use Google Gunner?

Since you have such a low opinion of Gunner why not be a compassionate
liberal and provide the google link?


wbc

wrote:

So I went and bought a fire extinguisher and a fire blanket. This
proved to be a total solution, the mere presence of them on the
kitchen wall has averted any more incidents. And my wife is still
here.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Andrew, Can't you see the exact corespondance to " the mere presence
of a firearm has averted any more incidents "
That is a very good simile you came up with. Perhaps if you had
put the extingusher and blanked on the wall before the first
event it wouldn't have happened.
...lew...

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:03:09 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Dec 19, 12:53 pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:01:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
On 18 Dec 2007 02:37:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

You've been told dozens of times. Do you really need to be told yet
again? Bad people may attack us. Until they're kept in jail, don't
deny me the ability to defend my family from them. This isn't
complicated, Andrew.

You sum it up well with few words, Dave.

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

You only think you don't.

Most folks here also think they don't. The vast majority of them (us)
will live their full lives turning out to be right about that. A few
feel it prudent to have what they probably won't need than not to have
what they might conceivably someday need. They each should have the
right to make their own choices. In the U.S., we do. In VK3 land,
you don't. Your choice. In VK3 land one may not even have an
incandescant lightbulb! It's easy to see why Andrew can only
understand what he is given to understand by the sensational media.

"Awash with guns" indeed. What poppycock -- and such persistent
poppycock it seems to be!

The hotbutton here is the notion of having those who don't think they
need or want firearms wanting to decide that since they don't like
them, nobody should have them. The rest of it is rhetoric from each
side trying to convince the other side. The same arguments,
statistics and rants prattle on interminably in both directions.

The U.S. originated as a quest for liberty and independence. It is
part of our culture to want to decide for ourselves as long as we
don't encroach on the rights of others to decide for themselves.
If one doesn't want firearms, he is quite free not to have them. If
another does want them, he is free to have them with varying
restrictions in various locales.

A similar degree of determination would be found if other liberties
-- religion, speech, assembly, taxation with representation, etc --
were under attack by government or special interest groups.

Some try to convince others that they should be armed, presumably with
the rationale that if they succeed then the others would stop trying
to disarm them. A more rational (and traditional) approach would
simply be to let 'em decide for themselves just as I am determined to
decide for myself.

The notion of preventing bad behavior by making it impossible to
behave badly is preposterous. Humans, Americans in particular, are
far too ingenious and resourceful for that to work. The only rational
approach is to deal effectively and decisively with those who do break
the laws we have in place.

wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Unable..or unwilling... to use Google Gunner?

Since you have such a low opinion of Gunner why not be a compassionate
liberal and provide the google link?


Ever try to get blood from a turnip?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:24 am, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

One assumes you not only dont wear your seat belt, but incourage
others to not wear theirs. And have removed all the batteries from
your residential smoke detectors and have stored away all your fire
extinguishers and first aid kits.

After all..to actually have them at hand, is the sign of paranoia and
an obsession.

Gunner

. Well. I remembered what the last thing Gunner mentioned - it was the
fire extinguisher, and how if you don't have a gun, a fire
extinguisher is no good to you.

On the face of it, this is a nonsensical statement - but I thought,
mm, there must be a logic here I cant understand, after all, Gunners
views are similar to many other pro-gun people here, they cannot all
be nutters. Besides, no one has beaten him to death yet, so he cant be
too bad....In GunnerLand, things are simple, so I came up with this
amplification of Gunners fire extinguisher beliefs, based directly on
my own life experiences.

When I got married, many years ago, I hadn't realised that my lovely
wife had a tendency to set fire to the kitchen. This has happened
twice, and both times I was able to put the fire out, then rebuild the
kitchen. After the first one, I counselled here on this extensively,
stressed the need to be safety conscious and not walk away from the
chip pan and start having long phone conversations with her
girlfriends. I thought I had got my point across, she promised it
would not happen again.

After the second time, I decided more drastic efforts were needed. In
GunnerLand, the solution would have been simple, expeditious, and
direct. Shoot her - she was a proven danger to my life, and the lives
of others.


Liar.


Ergo, I had a Right to shoot her in Self Defence. She was
an unlicensed person who had, somehow, in spite of all the checks and
balances, manged to get hold of a kitchen and was behaving in a
dangerous manner.

But, call me a sentimental softy, I couldn't do this - besides, she is
a great cook and good with the kids.

So I went and bought a fire extinguisher and a fire blanket. This
proved to be a total solution, the mere presence of them on the
kitchen wall has averted any more incidents. And my wife is still
here.

So, my conclusions. You don't NEED to carry a gun and be prepared to
use it, a fire extinguisher will do just as well. I have proved this
beyond reasonable doubt (see above - no lie) - just the very presence
of a fire extinguisher will avert any life threatening situations.

I rest my case. Its entirely consistent with the logic of the group.

Andrew VK3BFA.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

wrote:

Fire alarms - if I go off my brain in the mall, can I pull out my fire
alarm and kill people with it. No. A gun would be better.
Seat belts - they have been compulsory here since the 1970's. Rate of
fatal car crashes has declined by 50% per head of population. I
suppose I could unbolt the seat belt from my car and ram it down
someones throat and so kill them....but a gun would be better.


It sounds like you have severe anger issues, always describing ways
that you can kill people.


Agreed - and congratulations on surviving the car crash and the
shootdowns. I havent been shot down, but a seatbelt enabled me to
survive a horrific car crash.


And I survived a head on collision, only because I had taken off my
seat belt a few minutes earlier. The police who arrived on the scene
wanted to know where the driver's body was. They were stunned that they
were talking to the driver and told me several times that I was blessed,
and had survived ONLY because I removed the seat belt.


Yes, we have violent crime here, and its increasing. The use of knives
is increasing, almost certainly because the perps cant get guns. We
have largely controlled them.


They are still dead, no matter what is used.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 3:24 am, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:22:03 -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

OK. I will probably regret the flames I get BUT

Are you saying that the populace needs to be armed when they go out to
get a bottle of milk, lest they encounter a "bad guy" and need to
defend themselves?

What if the "bad guy" gets the drop on you, and kills you. Is it YOUR
fault as you were not quick enough to "defend" yourself? (seems to be
a common thread by some here...)

Do you want to be in a combat ready state of paranoia when you leave
your house?

Are you happy living in a society where such things see to be a
frequent occurrence?

How come you Yanks are so obsessed with guns? -

Your otherwise decent people - what gives with this gun nuttiness?

Andrew VK3BFA

One assumes you not only dont wear your seat belt, but incourage
others to not wear theirs. And have removed all the batteries from
your residential smoke detectors and have stored away all your fire
extinguishers and first aid kits.

After all..to actually have them at hand, is the sign of paranoia and
an obsession.

Gunner

. Well. I remembered what the last thing Gunner mentioned - it was the
fire extinguisher, and how if you don't have a gun, a fire
extinguisher is no good to you.

On the face of it, this is a nonsensical statement - but I thought,
mm, there must be a logic here I cant understand, after all, Gunners
views are similar to many other pro-gun people here, they cannot all
be nutters. Besides, no one has beaten him to death yet, so he cant be
too bad....In GunnerLand, things are simple, so I came up with this
amplification of Gunners fire extinguisher beliefs, based directly on
my own life experiences.

When I got married, many years ago, I hadn't realised that my lovely
wife had a tendency to set fire to the kitchen. This has happened
twice, and both times I was able to put the fire out, then rebuild the
kitchen. After the first one, I counselled here on this extensively,
stressed the need to be safety conscious and not walk away from the
chip pan and start having long phone conversations with her
girlfriends. I thought I had got my point across, she promised it
would not happen again.

After the second time, I decided more drastic efforts were needed. In
GunnerLand, the solution would have been simple, expeditious, and
direct. Shoot her - she was a proven danger to my life, and the lives
of others. Ergo, I had a Right to shoot her in Self Defence. She was
an unlicensed person who had, somehow, in spite of all the checks and
balances, manged to get hold of a kitchen and was behaving in a
dangerous manner.

But, call me a sentimental softy, I couldn't do this - besides, she is
a great cook and good with the kids.

So I went and bought a fire extinguisher and a fire blanket. This
proved to be a total solution, the mere presence of them on the
kitchen wall has averted any more incidents. And my wife is still
here.

So, my conclusions. You don't NEED to carry a gun and be prepared to
use it, a fire extinguisher will do just as well. I have proved this
beyond reasonable doubt (see above - no lie) - just the very presence
of a fire extinguisher will avert any life threatening situations.

I rest my case. Its entirely consistent with the logic of the group.

Andrew VK3BFA.

I have a wife like that -- my first wife, who I've kept for 34 years. I,
too, keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and remind her how to use it
from time to time. An impatient cook, she believes that a stove has two
speeds: On, and Off. I keep threatening to publish a cookbook titled
_Donna's Blowtorch Cookbook of One-Minute Recipes_. g

I feel a little sorry that someone who has a level head about this (you) is
getting a warped view of the gun situation in the US (from us). As you
probably recognize, the frequent posters here are unusually oriented towards
shooting and guns and can jerk out the ready-made and patented arguments
from memory. That's not to say they don't believe them nor that they don't
contain more than a grain of truth. It's just that, as TMT and Richard, and
maybe Don have said, they aren't the views of the vast majority of
Americans. This is a very conservative and independent-minded group for the
most part: it goes with the hobby in the US. To some extent that includes
me, although my views are not in line with those of Gunner or Steve, or the
others who have tried to...er, correct your thinking. d8-)

You're actually asking a question that should produce a lot of varied and
often contradictory views. Let me throw out a couple of facts that will
confuse the issue further. This is really dangerous ground I'm stepping on
here, so please hear me out before drawing conclusions.

According to Dept. of Justice figures, 52% of homicides in the US are
committed by blacks. I hesitate to say "African-Americans" because here in
the northeast the ones committing crimes appear to be mostly mulatto
Caribbeans -- Dominicans, Haitians, and so on. Blacks make up (IIRC)
something like 13% of the population nationwide, according to 2004 stats.

Also, it's difficult to dig this out of the statistics, but if you remove
the Hispanic "whites" from the figures, you've sliced off another large slug
of homicides. They're three times more likely than non-Hispanic whites to
commit a homicide.

When you remove those two groups from the statistics you get something that
looks like Europe, in terms of violent crime rates. I may be off with my
numbers a bit because I haven't picked this apart for a very long time, but
that's the general character of the situation.

Now, listen carefully, please: If you take away the large metropolitan
statistical areas and analyze the remainder by race and ethnicity, you get
the confusing result that blacks and Hispanics are hardly more likely than
non-Hispanic whites to commit homicides. So it's not really a race/ethnicity
issue. As Gunner rightly says, it's a cultural issue. And the culture we're
talking about, where most of the crime comes from, is inner cities that have
a lot of gangs and/or drug dealing. This is not always the largest cities.
Camden, NJ is a good example. It's a small city but a real violent-crime hot
spot, right here in the middle of the largely non-gun-owning part of the
country. The large majority of the gun crime in New Jersey is concentrated
in three small cities and one medium-sized one.

Five miles outside of Camden and you could be in France, as far as gun
crimes, or even crime in general, is concerned. The lines are sharp. And
most of us non-Hispanic whites don't go into places like Camden unless we're
dragged there by a court order.

Another statistic: I'm only moderately involved with guns (some hunting and
a little more target shooting, and that mostly because I was brought up with
them in rural areas, unlike my neighbors who have always lived in dense
suburbs), but I currently own 8 of them. I've owned as many as 16, mostly
inherited from my father and uncle. Ask Gunner how many he owns. Ha!

If I own 8 and there are maybe 250 million guns in the US, with a population
of 300 million, that means there are 6 or so people out there who don't own
any. Gunner probably has more guns than all of some small towns. g

There's another statistic that says something like 50% or 60% of the
households in America have at least one gun. Most of them, I'll venture, are
like my father-in-law: one ancient shotgun that hasn't been out of the
closet in 30 years.

So, we have a gun-crime problem, but it's mostly in inner cities and it's
heavily related to gangs. This is confused in your eyes, perhaps, because
all but a few of the nutters who have committed mass murders are young white
kids (the one in Virginia last year was an extremely rare ethnic Chinese,
and the one at the law school a few years ago was black, but the nutters are
mostly white). These are psychopaths and they don't seem to know they're not
supposed to be white, statistically speaking.

The upshot is that, as several others have said, most of us are unlikely
ever to encounter a gun crime. I used to work in New York City and I never
saw a gun in all the time I was there, except on the hip of a cop. I never
heard a shot. My wife worked for years in Newark, NJ, which used to be an
insufferable pesthole and which is now a moderate pesthole, and she never
saw or heard one, either.

In other words, you're getting a highly skewed view from the discussions
here. This is a very concentrated dose of gun-related discussion and
activity. The philosophies of carrying a concealed gun you'll hear in this
place are not necessarily odd, but they're not majority views. Most
Americans are a lot more like you in that regard. But not completely. We'll
usually make a stronger case for self-defense, even though most of us will
never encounter a need for it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...
wrote:

So I went and bought a fire extinguisher and a fire blanket. This
proved to be a total solution, the mere presence of them on the
kitchen wall has averted any more incidents. And my wife is still
here.

Andrew VK3BFA.

Andrew, Can't you see the exact corespondance to " the mere presence
of a firearm has averted any more incidents "
That is a very good simile you came up with. Perhaps if you had
put the extingusher and blanked on the wall before the first
event it wouldn't have happened.
...lew...

A couple of warning shots into the ceiling usually straighten them right
out. My wife is much more careful now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress