Take yer gun to the mall
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... 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! Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g 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. Yeah, we take care of them once they've shot somebody. Otherwise, your post shall go unmolested by my wisecracks. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 19, 8:55 am, 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? wbc Another one who can't use Google when it serves his purpose? You guys are starting to make me believe that the No Child Left Behind Act should include remedial Googling training also. Seek and thou will find..... TMT |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 19, 11:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: 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 Or a straight answer from a conservative? ;) It can be done if you squeeze hard enough. TMT |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 19, 11:24 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Very good discussion Ed. 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 LOL....if you publish, sign me up for a copy...no make that copies...I know several cooks who would benefit. TMT |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... 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. Unlike the people who discuss caliber and muzzle velocity in terms of terminal ballistics in, oh, say, goats. d8-) 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. You are nutz if you think that was a smart thing to do. You're nutz and lucky to the tune of 49:1. If you don't believe that, you need some better reading material. You may be blessed; I'd have no way to tell. But one thing is su you should have headed for the nearest horse track and bet the farm. That was your lucky day. A seat belt saved my life in 1971. It also kept me out of the hospital. The other guy (no seat belt, heavier car, lots more padding -- I was in a 1967 Ford Bronco) spent months recovering from a ruptured spleen and needed multiple plastic surgeries before they'd let him sit in a church pew without a bag over his head. And for every one of you, there are 49 of me. Do you play Russian roulette, too? -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 19, 5:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Awash with guns" indeed. What poppycock -- and such persistent poppycock it seems to be! Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g -- Ed Huntress I don't think "awash" is the right word. You wouldn't say that we are awash with cars, would you? Awash implies that there are more than what anyone knows what to do with the large quanity. Say one has one 12 gauge pump or automatic shotgun to use for hunting waterfowl. And another 12 gauge over and under for hunting upland birds. And a twenty gauge pump or automatic for shooting skeet in the 20 gauge class. I am assuming you can get by with using one of your 12 gauge shotguns for the 12 gauge class and that you don't compete in the 28 gauge and .410 classes. Then you might want a .22 and a .38 target pistol. A .22 target rifle, a .22 to plink with, a .22 center fire for varmit shooting. Say a .243 for deer hunting and a larger rifle for bigger game. Well that get you up to 10 guns. And while that may seem like a lot, they are all suited for different things. So I wouldn't say you were awash in guns. And none of these are what you would want to have to carry concealed. And none of them are assault rifles. Also no black powder guns , collectors guns, or Saturday night specials. Would you say someone was awash with machine tools because he has a lathe, drill press, vertical mill, and a bandsaw? Dan |
Take yer gun to the mall
wrote in message ... On Dec 19, 5:47 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Awash with guns" indeed. What poppycock -- and such persistent poppycock it seems to be! Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g -- Ed Huntress I don't think "awash" is the right word. You wouldn't say that we are awash with cars, would you? Awash implies that there are more than what anyone knows what to do with the large quanity. Say one has one 12 gauge pump or automatic shotgun to use for hunting waterfowl. And another 12 gauge over and under for hunting upland birds. And a twenty gauge pump or automatic for shooting skeet in the 20 gauge class. I am assuming you can get by with using one of your 12 gauge shotguns for the 12 gauge class and that you don't compete in the 28 gauge and .410 classes. Then you might want a .22 and a .38 target pistol. A .22 target rifle, a .22 to plink with, a .22 center fire for varmit shooting. Say a .243 for deer hunting and a larger rifle for bigger game. Well that get you up to 10 guns. And while that may seem like a lot, they are all suited for different things. So I wouldn't say you were awash in guns. And none of these are what you would want to have to carry concealed. And none of them are assault rifles. Also no black powder guns , collectors guns, or Saturday night specials. Would you say someone was awash with machine tools because he has a lathe, drill press, vertical mill, and a bandsaw? No, but I'd say that America was awash in machine tools if 60% of households had them. Again, I was referring to the total number of guns relative to the total population. We're awash, no two ways about it. Or maybe some would prefer "blessed." However, that much iron probably would subside the continent. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:47:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Awash with guns" indeed. What poppycock -- and such persistent poppycock it seems to be! Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g Not "awash" if their existance isn't evident in daily life. We're "awash" in automobiles. One can't go outside the house without seeing dozens to thousands of 'em. How many guns do you see each day? How many do or did your children see aside from on TV? Yeah, we take care of them once they've shot somebody. Otherwise, your post shall go unmolested by my wisecracks. d8-) We don't always take care of them once they've shot somebody. If we did there would be no repeat offenders. In any case, how many folks have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from military or law enforcement? How about folks injured or killed by other causes? |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
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 So, she uses superheated steam, instead of boiling water? ;-) -- 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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... 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. Unlike the people who discuss caliber and muzzle velocity in terms of terminal ballistics in, oh, say, goats. d8-) 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. You are nutz if you think that was a smart thing to do. You're nutz and lucky to the tune of 49:1. If you don't believe that, you need some better reading material. You may be blessed; I'd have no way to tell. But one thing is su you should have headed for the nearest horse track and bet the farm. That was your lucky day. A seat belt saved my life in 1971. It also kept me out of the hospital. The other guy (no seat belt, heavier car, lots more padding -- I was in a 1967 Ford Bronco) spent months recovering from a ruptured spleen and needed multiple plastic surgeries before they'd let him sit in a church pew without a bag over his head. And for every one of you, there are 49 of me. Do you play Russian roulette, too? Ed, that was the only time I EVER drove that truck without wearing my seat belt. It took me over four hours, just to get home, hitching rides with one police department, after another. I was sore for weeks. The impact threw me towards the passenger's door. I bent the steering column to the right, till it almost touched the dash. My head pushed most of the rear window out of the rubber seal, as well. The truck was totaled. It was an '83 Toyota pickup with 13,000 miles on it, and was just barely seven months old. Both doors were jammed shut, and the seat had crushed the full gas tank. Gasoline was pouring out onto the ground and some crazed hippy with a lit signal flare was running towards me and the puddle of gasoline, while I kicked the passenger's side door open. I had to shove the druggie jackass away from the gasoline, then I had to slug him to get the flare away before he started a fire. he was stupid enough to complain the the police, and almost got arrested. At least they did take away the rest of his flares. -- 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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g Ed, no one 'Askew'. ;-) -- 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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:47:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Awash with guns" indeed. What poppycock -- and such persistent poppycock it seems to be! Well, if not "awash," what the hell do you call a society of 300 million people and 250 million guns? Askew? g Not "awash" if their existance isn't evident in daily life. We're "awash" in automobiles. One can't go outside the house without seeing dozens to thousands of 'em. How many guns do you see each day? How many do or did your children see aside from on TV? OK, if "awash" has to be visibly awash, then we're not awash. We're something like awash, only you can't see it. They're like underwear or nipples. Which is an interesting point: We have more than *twice* as many nipples as guns. However, few of them should be seen in public. d8-) Yeah, we take care of them once they've shot somebody. Otherwise, your post shall go unmolested by my wisecracks. d8-) We don't always take care of them once they've shot somebody. I could ask something about *when* we're supposed to do something about them, then, but I'll restrain myself. My point was that we don't even *try* to do anything about it until they've shot somebody. That is, many gun owners prefer it that way, although various gun controls, particularly background checks, make at least a feeble attempt to do something about it. Of course, the barn doors are still open in terms of private sales and gun shows. Did you ever see the stats on guns used in crime, and where they come from? In the large majority of cases their last legal or apparently legal transaction was a private sale. If we did there would be no repeat offenders. How many cops do you think we'd need to reach a very high percentage of arrests for those cases? How many do you want to see when you walk to the corner store? In any case, how many folks have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from military or law enforcement? I think the answer is one, although maybe some of them aren't talking. How about folks injured or killed by other causes? Lots. Now, what is the point of this? If it's to say the problem is statistically a small one, we agree. If it's to say that it doesn't matter, we don't agree. Because the larger issue is not the relative number of deaths or injuries. It's *how* they occur. That's why it's a political issue in the first place. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: 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 So, she uses superheated steam, instead of boiling water? ;-) Boiling is too slow. She turns the burner up to full torch and times cooking for maximum smoke. If she walks out of the kitchen she invariably asks if something in the house is burning, to which I reply, "yes." -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
OK, if "awash" has to be visibly awash, then we're not awash. We're something like awash, only you can't see it. They're like underwear or nipples. Which is an interesting point: We have more than *twice* as many nipples as guns. However, few of them should be seen in public. d8-) It's a good thing that neither of those need a 'Concealed Carry Permit'. ;-) -- 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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
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 On top of that, Ed, I always wonder how many people the real "Pro-shoot-em-up" guys have actually shot in the course of their lives. No real disrespect intended, but a lot of this is simply tough guy talk. Since leaving Viet Nam, I've personally been in a total of zero fire fights. No school shootings. No freeway shoot-outs. No sniper situations, and no domestic shootings either. That's been 38 years now. (Golly! how the time flies when you're having fun!) And I live in Dallas, Texas! (Might be different in Fort Worth tho?) That doesn't mean I'm willing to turn in my hand guns. But I'm not going to start packing the thing to the mall - just in case I get a chance to shoot it out with some bad guys. In my humble experience (and knocking on my wooden head) that just isn't a realistic situation. I think the attitude is caused by media fueled fears (State of Fear?) YMMV Richard |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, if "awash" has to be visibly awash, then we're not awash. We're something like awash, only you can't see it. They're like underwear or nipples. Which is an interesting point: We have more than *twice* as many nipples as guns. However, few of them should be seen in public. d8-) It's a good thing that neither of those need a 'Concealed Carry Permit'. ;-) Some of them should require a permit of some kind. They're a hazard to public health. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: 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 On top of that, Ed, I always wonder how many people the real "Pro-shoot-em-up" guys have actually shot in the course of their lives. No real disrespect intended, but a lot of this is simply tough guy talk. Since leaving Viet Nam, I've personally been in a total of zero fire fights. No school shootings. No freeway shoot-outs. No sniper situations, and no domestic shootings either. That's been 38 years now. (Golly! how the time flies when you're having fun!) And I live in Dallas, Texas! (Might be different in Fort Worth tho?) That doesn't mean I'm willing to turn in my hand guns. But I'm not going to start packing the thing to the mall - just in case I get a chance to shoot it out with some bad guys. In my humble experience (and knocking on my wooden head) that just isn't a realistic situation. I think the attitude is caused by media fueled fears (State of Fear?) YMMV Richard We should pickle your post and tell Andrew to keep it on his shelf. That's probably closer to the median attitude in the US than most of what we've heard. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... 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. Unlike the people who discuss caliber and muzzle velocity in terms of terminal ballistics in, oh, say, goats. d8-) 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. You are nutz if you think that was a smart thing to do. You're nutz and lucky to the tune of 49:1. If you don't believe that, you need some better reading material. You may be blessed; I'd have no way to tell. But one thing is su you should have headed for the nearest horse track and bet the farm. That was your lucky day. A seat belt saved my life in 1971. It also kept me out of the hospital. The other guy (no seat belt, heavier car, lots more padding -- I was in a 1967 Ford Bronco) spent months recovering from a ruptured spleen and needed multiple plastic surgeries before they'd let him sit in a church pew without a bag over his head. And for every one of you, there are 49 of me. Do you play Russian roulette, too? Ed, that was the only time I EVER drove that truck without wearing my seat belt. OK, then you're not nutz. g I thought you were suggesting that it's smart not to wear a seat belt. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: Again, I was referring to the total number of guns relative to the total population. We're awash, no two ways about it. We need more guns, not fewer. You bet! One for each hand, two for the belt, a bandolier, and criss-crossed shotgun and AR15 on straps. That's what all the well-dressed folks wear to church these days. We only would be awash if everyone had more guns than they wanted. Well, then, I want to be awash in money first. Then I'll worry about the guns. If that were the case, guns would sell dirt cheap. The price of guns tells me that lots of people want lots more guns. It's hogwash to think 10 guns per person is 'awash', if I had that few I would be buying ;) I think they're about as cheap as they're going to get. An entire civilized society in which there is almost one gun per person (including infants, quadrapelegics, and the criminally insane) has to be as close to "awash" as anything one can imagine. However, you can wash in anything you want, as far as I'm concerned, and you'll get no objection from me. The point is that Andrew is quite right. We have a whole mess of guns. Unlike the impression he's getting from TV, however, probably far fewer than 1% of civilian adults carry them around at any given time. Nationwide, including the may-issue states, the percentage of adults with carry permits is right around 1%. Most of those guns sit in closets or locked in gun cases. When I was a student in Switzerland, the owner of the house kept his in the closet, too. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: Of course, the barn doors are still open in terms of private sales and gun shows. Did you ever see the stats on guns used in crime, and where they come from? In the large majority of cases their last legal or apparently legal transaction was a private sale. What other kind of sale is there? A sale in a public place: a gun shop. In any case, how many folks have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from military or law enforcement? Few police have ever been shot at ;) Forty-two were killed with handguns in 2005; 8 were killed with other guns. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"nick hull" wrote in message .. . In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: 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-) The ceiling?? Your roof must leak. Try the floor (unless you live on a boat ;) Ha-ha! Yes, shooting warning shots into the floor of a boat is not a good policy. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: Again, I was referring to the total number of guns relative to the total population. We're awash, no two ways about it. We need more guns, not fewer. We only would be awash if everyone had more guns than they wanted. If that were the case, guns would sell dirt cheap. The price of guns tells me that lots of people want lots more guns. It's hogwash to think 10 guns per person is 'awash', if I had that few I would be buying ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: Of course, the barn doors are still open in terms of private sales and gun shows. Did you ever see the stats on guns used in crime, and where they come from? In the large majority of cases their last legal or apparently legal transaction was a private sale. What other kind of sale is there? In any case, how many folks have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from military or law enforcement? Few police have ever been shot at ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote: 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-) The ceiling?? Your roof must leak. Try the floor (unless you live on a boat ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote: But I'm not going to start packing the thing to the mall - just in case I get a chance to shoot it out with some bad guys. I'll pack when I go to the mall, but I'm not packing BECAUSE I'm going to the mall (about once/2 yrs) but because I'm going someplace else ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
nick hull wrote:
Few police have ever been shot at ;) We just had a female state police shot dead in Las Cruces recently. I supose that dosent count. :-( ...lew... |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:48:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: We don't always take care of them once they've shot somebody. I could ask something about *when* we're supposed to do something about them, then, but I'll restrain myself. When they do it! My point was that we don't even *try* to do anything about it until they've shot somebody. That is, many gun owners prefer it that way, although various gun controls, particularly background checks, make at least a feeble attempt to do something about it. Of course, the barn doors are still open in terms of private sales and gun shows. Did you ever see the stats on guns used in crime, and where they come from? In the large majority of cases their last legal or apparently legal transaction was a private sale. I kinda guessed that was the case. That barn door could be closed as far as I'm concerned. We register automobiles. All of my guns were either bought from an FFL dealer, or bought from private individuals thru an FFL dealer if they were handguns. If we did there would be no repeat offenders. How many cops do you think we'd need to reach a very high percentage of arrests for those cases? How many do you want to see when you walk to the corner store? As many as it takes. More LE might be necessary, but it isn't sufficient. We'd also need to demand less tolerance from the courts and pols, and we'd have to pay the bill. In any case, how many folks have you personally known that have ever been shot at, aside from military or law enforcement? I think the answer is one, although maybe some of them aren't talking. How about folks injured or killed by other causes? Lots. Now, what is the point of this? If it's to say the problem is statistically a small one, we agree. If it's to say that it doesn't matter, we don't agree. Because the larger issue is not the relative number of deaths or injuries. It's *how* they occur. That's why it's a political issue in the first place. The point is that the number of guns extant is not the issue. The issue is the misuse of guns by criminals -- and any person who misuses a gun is a criminal by definition. The disagreement is in what might be a workable remedy, and that's why it's a political issue. "Make guns go away" is easy and cheap to say, clearly impossible to do without impracticably draconian measures. The remedy is to deal decisively and effectively with violent criminals, not with such implements as they may employ. It's a political issue because significant numbers of voters don't want to pay for things like law enforcement, schools or libraries. Sweden does not have zero or near-zero DWI because either automobiles or alcohol are banned or are even strongly-regulated there. It's because they have zero tolerance for abuse. Meanwhile, banning guns in Washington DC has had zero to negative effect on reduction of violent crime in that city. |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: OK, if "awash" has to be visibly awash, then we're not awash. We're something like awash, only you can't see it. They're like underwear or nipples. Which is an interesting point: We have more than *twice* as many nipples as guns. However, few of them should be seen in public. d8-) It's a good thing that neither of those need a 'Concealed Carry Permit'. ;-) Some of them should require a permit of some kind. They're a hazard to public health. d8-) Or given 'GI Showers" by the EPA and a HAZMAT team. :( -- 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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
nick hull wrote:
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: Again, I was referring to the total number of guns relative to the total population. We're awash, no two ways about it. We need more guns, not fewer. We only would be awash if everyone had more guns than they wanted. If that were the case, guns would sell dirt cheap. The price of guns tells me that lots of people want lots more guns. It's hogwash to think 10 guns per person is 'awash', if I had that few I would be buying ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ Send me a Winchester 73 for Christmas, nick? 44-40 please! |
Take yer gun to the mall
Lew Hartswick wrote:
nick hull wrote: Few police have ever been shot at ;) We just had a female state police shot dead in Las Cruces recently. I supose that dosent count. :-( ...lew... Condolences, Lew. Did the get teh perp yet? |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... big snip 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 Thanks for that post, Ed. Aussies like me, who learnt everything we know about the USA from: (1) The Simpsons, (2) Letterman, and (3) newsgroups like this, sometimes forget that the vast majority of 'merkins are just reg'lar folk who *don't* bristle with armaments. Its always a relief to be reminded that *some* of the regular posters on this group are not necessarily representative of the whole. -- Jeff R. in Sydney |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Jeff R." wrote Its always a relief to be reminded that *some* of the regular posters on this group are not necessarily representative of the whole. -- Jeff R. in Sydney Please quit. You're scaring me. Lots of fellas here I wouldn't trust with a dull screwdriver. Steve |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Jeff R." wrote in message u... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... big snip 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 Thanks for that post, Ed. Aussies like me, who learnt everything we know about the USA from: (1) The Simpsons, (2) Letterman, and (3) newsgroups like this, sometimes forget that the vast majority of 'merkins are just reg'lar folk who *don't* bristle with armaments. Its always a relief to be reminded that *some* of the regular posters on this group are not necessarily representative of the whole. -- Jeff R. in Sydney Knowing how you guys get your information about the US makes me almost want to cry. And the same is true in the other direction. The way the media work today (and for as long as I can remember), there's no way we'll get a realistic view of each other from media alone. In 1968 I spent most of the year in Europe and got my news from French (state) television. When I heard the stories about the US there it sounded like a revolution had occurred while I was gone and there was a civil war going on. Turn off the TV, and life in the US is not very dramatic. Mostly it's pretty dull unless you work really hard at making it exciting. BTW, as long as you're going to watch a twisted version of life in the US, turn off The Simpsons and start watching South Park, if your censors allow it there. It's a really subversive cartoon. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:50:13 -0700, Lew Hartswick
wrote: nick hull wrote: Few police have ever been shot at ;) We just had a female state police shot dead in Las Cruces recently. I supose that dosent count. :-( ...lew... It counts. Bummer that an LE officer was KIA in line of duty. Why did you specify that this officer was female, rather than simply saying that a competent officer was KIA. Do you think that equal opportunity doesn't cut both ways? Do you think that she would have wanted that? |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 19, 2:33 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It would seem that we have a new gun law coming.... Your opinion? TMT Congress OKs Va Tech-inspired gun bill By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Congress on Wednesday passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost. Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage. It was not immediately clear whether President Bush intended to sign, veto or ignore the bill. If Congress does not technically go out of session, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened, the bill would become law if Bush does not act within 10 days. "This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen," said the Senate's chief sponsor, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. One of the House's chief sponsors, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, spoke in the full House about her husband, who was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in New York. "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., added that the bill will speed up background checks and reinforce the rights of law abiding gun owners. Propelling the bill were the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 and rare agreement between political foes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association. But other interest groups said that in forging compromise with the gun lobby, the bill's authors unintentionally imposed an unnecessary burden on government agencies by freeing up thousands of people to buy guns. "Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others." The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets. Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs. His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun. Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons. The compromise would require that incorrect records -- such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do -- be removed from system within 30 days. The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that restriction. The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy. Propelling the long-sought legislation were the April 16 killings at Virginia Tech. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and himself using two guns he had bought despite his documented history of mental illness. Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to have outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used. But Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system. |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... BTW, as long as you're going to watch a twisted version of life in the US, turn off The Simpsons and start watching South Park, if your censors allow it there. It's a really subversive cartoon. d8-) -- Ed Huntress I'm too old for South Park. During the parts when my kids are guffawing, I'm covering my eyes and going "ewwwwww". (I'm referring specifically here to the Richard Dawkins-feces-throwing episode.) Actually, Simsons is quite sweet and emotional by comparison. I'm still getting repeats on Letterman. Are the writers still on strike? -- Jeff R. |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Jeff R." wrote in message u... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... BTW, as long as you're going to watch a twisted version of life in the US, turn off The Simpsons and start watching South Park, if your censors allow it there. It's a really subversive cartoon. d8-) -- Ed Huntress I'm too old for South Park. Nobody is too old for South Park. You just need to have an immature mind to enjoy it. I love it; my wife hates it. My son (age 20) finds it boring. So I probably have the...ah, youngest mind in the family. d8-) During the parts when my kids are guffawing, I'm covering my eyes and going "ewwwwww". (I'm referring specifically here to the Richard Dawkins-feces-throwing episode.) Some of it is more obnoxious than other parts. I always like Big Gay Al's sanctuary for homeless gay pets. The idea of it is a perfect commentary on our current nuttiness. Actually, Simsons is quite sweet and emotional by comparison. I'm still getting repeats on Letterman. Are the writers still on strike? Yes, but Letterman is striking a separate deal with the Writers' Guild and he'll probably be back on the air soon. -- Ed Huntress |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter