"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, disabling her with a shot to a non-vital area would be just as
effective, perhaps...

--
Ed Huntress

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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


wbc

Liberals are only "compassionate' if you completely agree with them,
deiviate even slightly from their beliefs and your are either the spawn of
satan or dumber than a box of rocks.

Bill

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?

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

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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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/

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/

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/

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/

wrote:

Would you say someone was awash with machine tools because he has a
lathe, drill press, vertical mill, and a bandsaw?

Dan


A very large A-Men to that.
...lew...

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...

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.

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

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!

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?

"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

"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

"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

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?

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.

"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.

"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