On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:46:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

SteveB wrote:

So, you have roughly one gun per person in the US. If they would ONLY count
the people who own NO guns, that is a figure I would find more reality
based, as in my household, we have enough for about 25 people............
more or less. Does that mean I'm awash?


Properly equipped.


My neighbor collects Hummel figureines. Is she "awash" in them?

Gunner

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.

Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?

Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.

Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights. We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.

You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in a
bad movie.

My point is, why are we talking about Dave's definition of reality?
Or your, or Andrew's, or anyone else's?



Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.

It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?

It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.

It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.

Exactly. The "accuracy" depends entirely on one's circumstances and
experiences.


For that matter, what suggestion has Andrew made that he wants to stop you
from dealing with "reality"? Have you been feeling paranoid lately?

Reread, please. He said "people like [Andrew]". Does that fit you?

People "like Andrew" doesn't include Andrew? Are you reading your own words,
Don? It sure sounds to me like he's including Andrew himself. By what logic
is he not? And I'll ask you what I asked him: By what twisted logic do you
come to the conclusion that Andrew wants to grab your guns?

I don't come to that conclusion. Others can draw their own as they
might.

Andrew seems to have his head screwed on straight. Dave is living a paranoid
fantasy and Gunner has a head full of mush fed to him by the loony-tunes at
Guncite.

You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather live
in a fantasy world, like them?

Neither. Your gross numbers may not be another's particular reality.
Here's an example: Gunner's "data" on the number of times guns are used in
defense is based on a study by Gary Kleck, which I know well, and about
which I wrote an analysis in 1994 (no, I don't still have it; it went the
way of old hard disks). There was an attempt to repeat some of it by the
DOJ/National Institute of Justice in 1997, reported by Philip J. Cook and
Jens Ludwig:

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf.

It's unlikely that Gunner has ever read that study, but he's probably read
the Guncite summaries and Kleck's commentary about it. In fact, unless he
continues to pretend he doesn't read my posts, he'll find some way to
respond to my recent one with DOJ figures and he'll probably quote this,
unless he reads this post first g:

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by
law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey
conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.
Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of
between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each
had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study
specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

"Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey
in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and
Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this
survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

But what Guncite doesn't tell you is that the DOJ study (NSPOF) fairly
obliterates Kleck's study. Here, they're talking about how they closely
copied his methodology and got equally ridiculous results:

"For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the
NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS [National Crime
Vicitimization Survey] -estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU
assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were
close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed! [What they're
saying here is that repeating Kleck's study leads to the conclusion that
people defended themselves with a gun in 19 percent of aggravated assaults
and 36 percent of robberies. Considering that actual defensive use of a gun
as reported by police in actual crimes runs between 1% and 3%, the
conclusion is that the Kleck study gives you crap results to the tune of
10:1 or even much more. That agrees with the relative numbers Gunner and I
cited in a recent post. He's at least 10:1 full of crap, in other words.]

"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed
by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases."

Gaackk! Yeah, I'll say it's out of line, unless something over 100,000
gunshot victims per year are self-medicating. Maybe they're doing
self-surgery with a Bowie knife and a bottle of whiskey. d8-) What I didn't
repeat here is the statistic that Kleck's study, and the NSPOF duplicate of
it, indicate that women defend themselves with guns in rape attempts, in
more cases than all of the rapes AND ATTEMPTED RAPES reported in the
National Crime Victimization Survey. There sure must be a lot of
pistol-packing mommas out there! Cloud-cuckooland, anyone?

Kleck makes a few good points in his response but unfortunately they address
the wrong issue. He gives reasons that the NSPOF study underreports the
numbers. But the NSPOF actually came up with numbers almost as ridiculous as
his. The real issue is that the methodology leads to demonstrably ridiculous
results. Kleck's study was very carefully done, very scientific...crap. Read
the NSPOF study and you'll get a clearer picture of what this is all about.

Of course, Guncite tells you none of this and Gunner probably has never
heard it before. That's why his head is full of mush. As for Dave, it's
harder to characterize his fantasies but he seems to think the world is out
to get him. Maybe he wears Nomex suits when he drives his car, too; it would
make a lot more sense, statistically speaking.

The bottom line here is that rights are one issue: I believe that anyone has
a right to defend him- or herself, and that can include defense with a
concealed-carry gun if they reasonably believe that's what is required. I'm
not quibbling over percentages in terms of rights.

But don't try to tell me that it makes sense in terms of real threats, or
that it's "reality."

I have no idea what your "reality" might be. I don't live your life!
That, simply put, is nuts. Reality is that you're four
times more likely to be killed in a car accident, even if you don't count
where you live. If you live and work in a decent community, it's probably
more like 50 times more likely, or even more. But few people who claim
they're carrying a gun to defend themselves against "reality" would even
consider wearing five-point seatbelts, having a full rollcage, and wearing a
firesuit. Any of those things is far more likely to protect them from injury
or death, in reality, than carrying a gun. Reality is the numbers.

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.

You and I and Andrew do not feel the need to carry. Lucky us! I
certainly can see how others might, and I certainly can imagine
situations and circumstances where I definitely would.

Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a little
back at him.

Tit for tat, eh?

Gunner wrote:

My neighbor collects Hummel figureines. Is she "awash" in them?


Not if she can still get into her house! ;-)


--
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

What scares me as the population ages - is the TAZER. I see it used
on-the-fly as a shaking finger or drawn night-stick. To many victims
were in the right and an over jealous officer or person expecting
total control and acts like a dictator. Kinda like the woman the other
day buying some things and got an emergence call from the husband about
their child in school - she ran out font of the store and talked the private
talk - teller called the cops - cop would not listen or find out what happened.
The cop kept driving her backwards with demands and finally shot and arrested
her. She could be your wife with a call from you about your sick kid.

I wonder what happened to the kid during all of this - Dad knew Mom had
it covered. When was it possible for the wife to call the husband or
the child or a lawyer to do the same ?

Presence is one thing, cow-tow as a subservient is another.

I have never been in agreement that the Tazer isn't a deadly weapon.
Why is it used as a knockdown/disable/avoid constitutional right machine?

Martin

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


cavelamb himself wrote:
Gunner wrote:

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...



One is "few"

The leading cause of death among police officers, is traffic
accidents.

The majority of police shootings, are shootings done with their own
weapon, after having it taken away from them by the suspect, who didnt
have one of his own.

Shall we disarm all police officers for their own safety?

Gunner

I dunno.

I think _I_ would feel safer.

The English Bobbies really impressed me.
They were approachable.

They didn't seem like tough guys - which many police officers here seem
to want to be.

And, since they are never around when a crime is being comitted...

On Dec 21, 7:15*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:31:08 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:35:23 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

What if a law is passed that makes carrying a spare tire/tire iron
illegal?

What if pigs could fly? *New sport for shotgunners, upland bacon! Need
a BIG dog to retreive, though. * * *

I see TMT is still an idiot. *Of course, I'd violate a law banning me
from having a tire iron, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, or any other
piece of safety equipment.

Hmmm...so as a "law abiding" citizen you only follow the laws that you
like?

I suppose you would resist any attempt by society from insuring that
you comply with existing laws?

If so, it sounds like you are a home grown terrorist...with guns.

So what will you do when society requests that you submit to psych
testing to insure that you would make a responsible gun owner?

TMT

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Reality is the numbers.

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.


I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
statistics. I earned A grades.

I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.

Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
butterfly to march.

Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with
that.

Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?

Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.

Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights.
We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.

You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend
himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in
a
bad movie.

My point is, why are we talking about Dave's definition of reality?
Or your, or Andrew's, or anyone else's?

Because, if you read the thread, that's what Dave and Steve were talking
about, while they were disparaging Andrew's, and to which I objected. It was
an unnecessary and sarcastic put-down after Andrew was making a pretty good
effort to express incredulity without being insulting. On top of it, their
remarks are based on baloney.

Steve says, "Enjoy your Pollyannish Utopia... Don't ferget yer rose colored
glasses when you go out." Dave says, "Then why do you presume to inject your
irrelevant fantasy world into reality so frequently?" Who is living in the
pollyanish [sic], utopian, irrelevant fantasy world? Not Andrew.




Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that
I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.

It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you
do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?

It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.

It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.

Exactly. The "accuracy" depends entirely on one's circumstances and
experiences.

So, does Dave sell drugs and live in a crack alley? He says there have only
been a couple of murders in his area since the mid-'90s, so, much more
likely, Dave is inclined to get more emotionally upset over the very remote
chance he'll be threatened with a gun, while probably doing nothing
comparable to defend his life in potential car accidents. All accidents
together rank 5th among causes of death. Homicides, all causes, rank 15th.
Car accidents alone rank somewhere around 9th. Firearms homicides rank
around 18th.

In other words, the REALITY is that you should spend a great deal more
effort protecting yourself from car accidents, including such things as the
five-point harness and roll cages I mentioned before, if you are going to
deal with the REAL relative threats. And for God's sake, stay away from
motorcycles: the per-mile death rate riding those things is 20 times higher
than for cars (NHTSA, April, 2003).

As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.

Sticking to reality, the real threat Andrew faces from armed criminals is
quite small, if you look at the figures for Australia. He faces a *much*
greater threat from a car accident and from many other kinds of avoidable
circumstances, including overeating. g So, as I said, he's living
rationally in the real world. Dave and Steve...well, they're entitled to
their emotional reactions. There are just enough gun threats and homicides
out there that one can carry a gun to defend himself and be within reason.
And that's their choice, as I've said repeatedly. This isn't a question of
rights. It's a question of what the more "reality" driven course of action
is.

Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality. In the case of
most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night. We incorporate those levels of danger into our list
of acceptable risks and get on with it. Heck, some people even ride
motorcycles. They have a *big* risk tolerance. I used to race sports cars,
ride motorcycles, and do lots of things that require a lot of risk
tolerance.

So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.

snip

You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather
live
in a fantasy world, like them?

Neither. Your gross numbers may not be another's particular reality.

Dave told us he lives in a fairly murder-free area. That appears to be his
"reality," in his own words.

snip

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.

So, do you wear five-point harness, a Nomex suit, and have a roll cage in
your car? If not, why not? The risk of dying in a car accident has low
probability but high cost. If we applied your logic here, anyone who makes a
claim about what is a real threat and what is not (Dave and Steve), who
don't go to lengths comparable to carrying and training with a gun, with all
that entails, isn't being very consistent, is he? That is, unless he also
has an emotional motive regarding defense against armed criminals, as well
as a reality-based motive to protect his life.


You and I and Andrew do not feel the need to carry. Lucky us! I
certainly can see how others might, and I certainly can imagine
situations and circumstances where I definitely would.

Sure. So can I. I seriously doubt if Dave or Steve have a "need" that
exceeds their reality-based need to go to at least equal lengths in regard
to much more likely threats they face, but that's their business. I just
don't see how Dave or Steve get off claiming that Andrew is living a
fantasy.


Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a
little
back at him.

Tit for tat, eh?

I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:27:14 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Dec 21, 7:15*pm, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:31:08 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:35:23 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

What if a law is passed that makes carrying a spare tire/tire iron
illegal?

What if pigs could fly? *New sport for shotgunners, upland bacon! Need
a BIG dog to retreive, though. * * *

I see TMT is still an idiot. *Of course, I'd violate a law banning me
from having a tire iron, fire extinguisher, first aid kit, or any other
piece of safety equipment.

Hmmm...so as a "law abiding" citizen you only follow the laws that you
like?

No..only the Constitutional ones.

I suppose you would have turned in your Jewish neighbors, in 1941
Germany, correct?

Based on your posting history..Id give that an unqualified yes, and
add that you would likely be a Geheime Staatspolizei thug as well.
They recruited faggots with a blind devotion to Authority. You would
have fit right in.

I suppose you would resist any attempt by society from insuring that
you comply with existing laws?

If so, it sounds like you are a home grown terrorist...with guns.

So Rottenfuhrer TMT...sent any Jews to the Camps today?

So what will you do when society requests that you submit to psych
testing to insure that you would make a responsible gun owner?

TMT
Humm...make that Untersturmfuhrer TMT. The fanatical but stupid always
get made into 2nd Lieutenants

Gunner

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:48:18 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Reality is the numbers.

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.


I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
statistics. I earned A grades.

I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.

Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
butterfly to march.

Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.

I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
accident or fire in ones home are.

Ask Ed, since he is the man with the stats.

Gunner

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:21:45 -0600, Don Foreman wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You could ease your tensions by getting more target practice. Make up a big
puppet and label it "Liberal." Stuff with straw. Fire away.

That is gratuitous patronization unworthy of your ability to
contribute.

Yup. Reminds me why he's in my killfile. Sheesh.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:24:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

Humm...make that Untersturmfuhrer TMT. The fanatical but stupid always
get made into 2nd Lieutenants

Gunner

Some truth to that! I graduated first in my EOBC class academically,
last overall due to "attitude"! I wasn't any good at all at the
eeeeyaaaahhh rah rah bull****. I was very glad I wouldn't have to
suffer being subordinate to some of my classmates.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:27:00 -0800, Gunner
wrote:



I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
accident or fire in ones home are.

Ask Ed, since he is the man with the stats.

I only care about the likelihood of my having a fire or accident.
Occurrances of fires and accidents are not completely nor even
particularly stochastic processes. One can "prove" about anything
with stats, but that doesn't make it so in any particular case.

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

My neighbor collects Hummel figureines. Is she "awash" in them?


Not if she can still get into her house! ;-)

Only if she carries them concealed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:35:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.

Yes, I think that's so. There is also an element of fear involved.

Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality.

So is marriage. Tawk about risk!

In the case of most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night.

I do that for maintenance and improvement of skill. It works. I
enjoy shooting, and I enjoy it more when I do it better. You probably
know that shooting a pistol well isn't nearly as easy as it looks on
TV.

Some guys putt golfballs in their offices and homes.

So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.

I must agree. Can't speak for them, but I think it is extremely
unlikely that I shall ever have to shoot anyone nor even face an armed
confrontation situation. I'm far too old to be recalled to military
service. However, after a week-long power outage and blackout
shortly after Katrina, during which I felt quite vulnerable, I must
admit that I feel better being able to defend my home even though I
really don't expect I'll ever have to. If that's irrational, so be
it.

I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.

Reason and tolerance are certainly preferable to sarcasm.

On Dec 23, 8:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?


--
Ed Huntress

Todays new in the Seattle papers is about a home invasion in Kent.
One dead.


Dan

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:18:23 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
Gunner wrote:

The majority of police shootings, are shootings done with their own
weapon, after having it taken away from them by the suspect, who didnt
have one of his own.
Shall we disarm all police officers for their own safety?

I dunno.
I think _I_ would feel safer.

You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? Really?

The English Bobbies really impressed me.
They were approachable.

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.

They didn't seem like tough guys - which many police officers here seem
to want to be.

Maybe you know different cops than I know.

And, since they are never around when a crime is being comitted...

....perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. Hmmm.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:35:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality.

I think you've pegged it, Ed, re the gun matter whether carried or
not. It's largely emotion, including fear or at least anxiety, on
both sides of the issue. Some are just anxious about guns period.
Some want to tell others what they should or may do. This need is
often inversely proportional to how much power they feel they have
over their own lives and fates. Some are anxious that others would
deprive them of their guns, because there are clearly those who would
do so if they could.

I enjoy my guns. I intend to keep them. I enjoy shooting them, and I
enjoy them for the precision objects they are. I keep them secured.
I and they pose absolutely no threat or danger to any non-criminal, so
I would be quite displeased to have others deprive me of my objects
and activity to make themselves feel better.

Reason and rational thinking is often ineffective in addressing
emotion because folks aren't easily persuaded to think differently
than they feel. So, TMT pushes this hotbutton every few months to
enjoy the ****storm of rhetoric, argument, flames, smoke and feathers
it always produces.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Reality is the numbers.

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.


I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
statistics. I earned A grades.

I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.

Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
butterfly to march.

Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.

These aren't heavy-duty statistics though, Don. This is all little more than
arithmetic.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:48:18 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Reality is the numbers.

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.


I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
statistics. I earned A grades.

I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.

Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
butterfly to march.

Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.

I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
accident or fire in ones home are.

The trouble with car-accident statistics is that you have to decide if
you're comparing incidents per capita, per car, or per mile driven. Per
capita, your chance of dying in a car accident is about four times higher
than your chance of dying from a gunshot -- except for suicides, which
complicate the numbers.

Regarding house fires, there is a similar problem. But deaths per capita
from house fires run around 1/3 that of intentional, non-suicide gunshots in
the US: that is, about 3,000 deaths per year. Injuries from house fires are
around 17,000/year; I'd have to look up injuries from gunfire to compare
them.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:27:00 -0800, Gunner
wrote:



I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
accident or fire in ones home are.

Ask Ed, since he is the man with the stats.

I only care about the likelihood of my having a fire or accident.
Occurrances of fires and accidents are not completely nor even
particularly stochastic processes. One can "prove" about anything
with stats, but that doesn't make it so in any particular case.

I'm glad you brought that up (stochastic meaning, approximately, "random.").
Who gets counted as the "criminal" and who is the "victim" often is an
ambiguous thing. A high percentage of victims of gun-related crime actually
are criminals, or former criminals, themselves, engaging in illegal or
otherwise risky behavior. The victim in these stats often is just the one
who got shot.

When you start applying multivariate methods to these numbers you find that
the chances of you, Don, Steve, or almost anyone else here being the victim
of a gun crime drop off sharply from the overall numbers I've been using.
Trying to sort this out is an impossible task but the numbers STRONGLY favor
the pro-gun-for-defense crowd when you start looking more closely at the
variables. In other words, my claims here are extremely conservative ones.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:35:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and
resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.

Yes, I think that's so. There is also an element of fear involved.

Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality.

So is marriage. Tawk about risk!

In the case of most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise
some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night.

I do that for maintenance and improvement of skill. It works. I
enjoy shooting, and I enjoy it more when I do it better. You probably
know that shooting a pistol well isn't nearly as easy as it looks on
TV.

Well, that's fine, and I used to get in a lot of practice, dry-fire an
otherwise, when I shot Bullseye and Action Pistol. The point is, though,
that it's a lot of effort if your purpose is self-defense, as someone here
pointed out in regards to his level of training. Not many people go through
defensive-maneuver driving practice like that. d8-)


Some guys putt golfballs in their offices and homes.

So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of
risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about
emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.

I must agree. Can't speak for them, but I think it is extremely
unlikely that I shall ever have to shoot anyone nor even face an armed
confrontation situation. I'm far too old to be recalled to military
service. However, after a week-long power outage and blackout
shortly after Katrina, during which I felt quite vulnerable, I must
admit that I feel better being able to defend my home even though I
really don't expect I'll ever have to. If that's irrational, so be
it.

That's not irrational. It's just a rare event.


I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.

Reason and tolerance are certainly preferable to sarcasm.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was no need to combat it?

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 8:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting
gallery,
and
you're the duck?


--
Ed Huntress

Todays new in the Seattle papers is about a home invasion in Kent.
One dead.

Well, there's one. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:27:00 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

,;On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:48:18 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
,;
,; Reality is the numbers.
,;
,;No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
,;numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
,;that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
,;Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
,;20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...
,;
,;If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
,;has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.
,;
,;
,;I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
,;statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
,;My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
,;My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
,;statistics. I earned A grades.
,;
,;I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
,;be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
,;and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.
,;
,;Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
,;cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
,;butterfly to march.
,;
,;Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.
,;
,;I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
,;accident or fire in ones home are.

The likelihood of having an auto accident in ones home are very low.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:35:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality.

I think you've pegged it, Ed, re the gun matter whether carried or
not. It's largely emotion, including fear or at least anxiety, on
both sides of the issue. Some are just anxious about guns period.
Some want to tell others what they should or may do. This need is
often inversely proportional to how much power they feel they have
over their own lives and fates. Some are anxious that others would
deprive them of their guns, because there are clearly those who would
do so if they could.

I enjoy my guns. I intend to keep them. I enjoy shooting them, and I
enjoy them for the precision objects they are. I keep them secured.
I and they pose absolutely no threat or danger to any non-criminal, so
I would be quite displeased to have others deprive me of my objects
and activity to make themselves feel better.

I feel about the same way. As I used to say to a rabid anti-gun artist in an
ad agency I worked for, "what do MY guns have to do with YOUR crime
problem?"


Reason and rational thinking is often ineffective in addressing
emotion because folks aren't easily persuaded to think differently
than they feel. So, TMT pushes this hotbutton every few months to
enjoy the ****storm of rhetoric, argument, flames, smoke and feathers
it always produces.

The fact that it draws so much flak is a good indicator that it isn't a
rational issue to begin with, even though nearly everyone reaches for
rationalized arguments to defend their position. When you subject them to
the scrutiny of facts on the ground, they don't usually come out very well.

However, one's feeling of security is a personal thing, as you say, and a
legitimate reason to make one decision or another -- unless it's so far out
that it winds up impinging on someone else's rights or sense of security.
When it does, we have these conflicts. And that's what the conflicts a
battles about who is going to be empowered over whom, and the resulting
sense of security one feels or doesn't feel.

--
Ed Huntress

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:21:45 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

You could ease your tensions by getting more target practice. Make up a
big
puppet and label it "Liberal." Stuff with straw. Fire away.

That is gratuitous patronization unworthy of your ability to
contribute.

Yup. Reminds me why he's in my killfile. Sheesh.

Aw, did we hurt wittle Gunner's wittle feelings? He's SO sensitive, as we
see every couple of days when he describes what kind of insect larvae he
would like to see eating out someone else's brains. d8-)

I'm soooo sowwy, Gunner. I'll try to remember that you're really a sensitive
soul with delicate feelings...

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 8:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting
gallery,
and
you're the duck?


--
Ed Huntress

Todays new in the Seattle papers is about a home invasion in Kent.
One dead.


Dan

Hopefully not the homeowner?

Steve

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:27:00 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

,;On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:48:18 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
,;
,; Reality is the numbers.
,;
,;No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
,;numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
,;that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
,;Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
,;20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...
,;
,;If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
,;has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.
,;
,;
,;I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
,;statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
,;My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
,;My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
,;statistics. I earned A grades.
,;
,;I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
,;be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
,;and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.
,;
,;Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
,;cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
,;butterfly to march.
,;
,;Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.
,;
,;I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
,;accident or fire in ones home are.

The likelihood of having an auto accident in ones home are very low.

ALTHOUGH, STATISTICALLY, IT DOES HAPPEN!

Tell it to someone who's driven through their garage.

Nuff said.

Steve

Unknown wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:27:00 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

,;On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:48:18 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:51:43 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:
,;
,;On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
,;
,; Reality is the numbers.
,;
,;No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
,;numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
,;that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
,;Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
,;20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...
,;
,;If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
,;has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.
,;
,;
,;I'll note as a postscript that I do have some comprehension of
,;statistics and numbers. I took a minor in statistics in grad school.
,;My graduate-level courses were in the statistics dept of the U of MN.
,;My professor was head of the dept and author of texts in theory of
,;statistics. I earned A grades.
,;
,;I won't presume to lecture, but I must say that faulty decisions can
,;be and often are made from numbers that are valid in context gathered
,;and taken but perhaps and even often not so in particular.
,;
,;Try to explain even elementary theory of statistics, probability or
,;cost-risk analysis to a politican or a zeolot. It's like traning a
,;butterfly to march.
,;
,;Barrage of cites and numbers do seem to be persuasive.
,;
,;I wonder what the stats are, on the likelihood of having an auto
,;accident or fire in ones home are.

The likelihood of having an auto accident in ones home are very low.


You wouldn't know that from watching the local news. It seems like
every few days, a vehicle hits a building.


--
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

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:18:23 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

Gunner wrote:


The majority of police shootings, are shootings done with their own
weapon, after having it taken away from them by the suspect, who didnt
have one of his own.
Shall we disarm all police officers for their own safety?



I dunno.
I think _I_ would feel safer.


You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? Really?

The English Bobbies really impressed me.
They were approachable.


I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.


They didn't seem like tough guys - which many police officers here seem
to want to be.


Maybe you know different cops than I know.


And, since they are never around when a crime is being comitted...


...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. Hmmm.



and there you see the slippery slope...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:24:02 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 23, 8:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?


--
Ed Huntress

Todays new in the Seattle papers is about a home invasion in Kent.
One dead.


Dan

Kent England? The the dead was the resident.

In the US, one has to ask if it were the perp or the resident

Gunner



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

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

On Dec 23, 10:28*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The likelihood of having an auto accident in ones home are very low.

* *You wouldn't know that from watching the local news. *It seems like
every few days, a vehicle hits a building.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Likewise around here.

http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh...secondarystory
http://ledger.southofboston.com/arti...ews/news03.txt

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? Really?

I really am interested in your answer. You fear your cops more than you
fear your criminals? Tell me again where you live?

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.
Maybe you know different cops than I know.

I also wonder about your non-response to this.

...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. Hmmm.

and there you see the slippery slope...

Nothing slippery or slope about it. Criminals avoid getting hurt if at
all possible. You observed that cops are never around when crimes are
committed. I'd start by saying you're obviously wrong but yes, there is
probably a strong correlation. The difference in your POV and mine, is
that I see it as a deterrance factor, you apparently see it as some sort
of psychic avoidance thing or whatever.

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. So, I'm on my own. If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

On Dec 24, 9:06*am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? *Really?

I really am interested in your answer. *You fear your cops more than you
fear your criminals? * Tell me again where you live?

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.
Maybe you know different cops than I know.

I also wonder about your non-response to this.

...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. *Hmmm.
and there you see the slippery slope...

Nothing slippery or slope about it. *Criminals avoid getting hurt if at
all possible. *You observed that cops are never around when crimes are
committed. *I'd start by saying you're obviously wrong but yes, there is
probably a strong correlation. *The difference in your POV and mine, is
that I see it as a deterrance factor, you apparently see it as some sort
of psychic avoidance thing or whatever.

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

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

TMT

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? Really?

I really am interested in your answer. You fear your cops more than you
fear your criminals? Tell me again where you live?

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.
Maybe you know different cops than I know.

I also wonder about your non-response to this.

...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. Hmmm.

and there you see the slippery slope...

Nothing slippery or slope about it. Criminals avoid getting hurt if at
all possible. You observed that cops are never around when crimes are
committed. I'd start by saying you're obviously wrong but yes, there is
probably a strong correlation. The difference in your POV and mine, is
that I see it as a deterrance factor, you apparently see it as some sort
of psychic avoidance thing or whatever.

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. So, I'm on my own. If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

(this is not aimed at you, Dave, but to some of the people who have posted
in this thread; I agree with you on a lot of things.)

It's all attitude. Most people have a problem with police officers because
they have to deal with them because they have done something wrong. (Or
that they are living a lifestyle that includes illegal activities and are
paranoid of the police.) Waddyamean I can't drive like an idiot?
Waddyamean I can't park wherever I want and not pay the meter? Waddya mean
I can't drive as fast as I want? ........ even though it's icy and blowin a
gale .......... (boy, I'm glad I left that blunt at home)

If they've been victimized, attitude changes because they want the good man
to get the bad man. Then they want the cops. And IF they do catch the
criminals and retrieve the car or furniture, what a hero!

And most people's problems with cops during encounters with them is
attitude.

I am very familiar with LEOs. We have several in our family and lineage.
Some are/were good cops, and a couple would have ****ed up a job at
McDonalds and should have never made or stayed on the force. My daughter is
currently an active PO, and SIL is a sergeant in a cruiser working graveyard
in a city of two million people. I have worked as a coroner investigator
and other part time or voluntary capacities.

I have visible identification on my car and in my wallet identifying me as a
member of law enforcement. It's a specific sign that signals an officer
that this is one of them. I have only had two encounters in the last
fifteen years, those for minor traffic scrapes, both not my fault. I am not
a "victim" of police stops because I drive sanely and within the law. I
have not been stopped and questioned in any police matter for any reason.

Both times, I just hand my ID to the PO, look them straight in the eye, and
in an instant they know who I am. One asked me a couple of verification
questions. Then I watch the show with the other guys. How the citizen
treats the officer. How the officer treats the citizen. One citizen was
good, the other was contentious and had the "Why aren't you out there
catching criminals instead of giving me a ticket" routine. Both officers
were courteous and professional.

I have been on numerous ridealongs. I love them, but only get about two a
year because I don't want anyone to claim favoritism. But anyone can go on
these evenings patrolling with police to see just what they do, and how much
crap they do have to take from people with attitudes on a daily basis.

There are a lot of good police officers out there. And there are bad ones.
And there are transitional ones who will not stay because of one reason or
the other, and move on to something else. And then there are the power
freaks who just love being able to exert their power. Most good street POs
move on to better departments and specialize in certain crimes. So, the PO
you see on the street are the ones that either like it, or can't pass the
test to move up. And some of them are frustrated because they think just
because they've been there ten years, they deserve the gift of promotion and
shouldn't have to pass no steenking test. And there lies many problems.
Guys just putting in time.

Enter, John Q. Citizen. Wannabe lawyer. Frustrated businessman. Henpecked
husband. Bulldozer married woman. Manhaters. People who live a shady
lifestyle, but aren't doing anything bad at that moment. Control freaks who
don't like being told to shut up and take their hands out of their pockets.
Or just angry unhappy people.

Every time I read someone's comments here downing cops, I know that were
their attitude to be traced back to its source, it wouldn't be a bad cop.
They're fired every day for mistreating citizens, but those citizens go on
and don't **** and moan for the rest of their lives. Those citizens with an
attitude have an attitude about every little thing, and can be classified as
just unhappy human beings. Little children who will fuss because they think
they didn't get the biggest piece of pie. And it if wasn't that big bad cop
giving them a parking ticket for double parking for an hour in the airport
drop off area, it would be something else. And ALL someone else's fault.

So, if you don't like cops, handle the situation yourself. And if you run
into a PO, try to act decent for a change and see how that works. Or carry
a weapon and dispense your own justice for as long as that lasts.

And maybe get some counseling for that attitude.

Steve

On Dec 24, 12:20*pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? *Really?

I really am interested in your answer. *You fear your cops more than you
fear your criminals? * Tell me again where you live?

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.
Maybe you know different cops than I know.

I also wonder about your non-response to this.

...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. *Hmmm.

and there you see the slippery slope...

Nothing slippery or slope about it. *Criminals avoid getting hurt if at
all possible. *You observed that cops are never around when crimes are
committed. *I'd start by saying you're obviously wrong but yes, there is
probably a strong correlation. *The difference in your POV and mine, is
that I see it as a deterrance factor, you apparently see it as some sort
of psychic avoidance thing or whatever.

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

(this is not aimed at you, Dave, but to some of the people who have posted
in this thread; *I agree with you on a lot of things.)

It's all attitude. *Most people have a problem with police officers because
they have to deal with them because they have done something wrong. *(Or
that they are living a lifestyle that includes illegal activities and are
paranoid of the police.) *Waddyamean I can't drive like an idiot?
Waddyamean I can't park wherever I want and not pay the meter? *Waddya mean
I can't drive as fast as I want? ........ even though it's icy and blowin a
gale .......... *(boy, I'm glad I left that blunt at home)

If they've been victimized, attitude changes because they want the good man
to get the bad man. *Then they want the cops. *And IF they do catch the
criminals and retrieve the car or furniture, what a hero!

And most people's problems with cops during encounters with them is
attitude.

I am very familiar with LEOs. *We have several in our family and lineage..
Some are/were good cops, and a couple would have ****ed up a job at
McDonalds and should have never made or stayed on the force. *My daughter is
currently an active PO, and SIL is a sergeant in a cruiser working graveyard
in a city of two million people. *I have worked as a coroner investigator
and other part time or voluntary capacities.

I have visible identification on my car and in my wallet identifying me as a
member of law enforcement. *It's a specific sign that signals an officer
that this is one of them. *I have only had two encounters in the last
fifteen years, those for minor traffic scrapes, both not my fault. *I am not
a "victim" of police stops because I drive sanely and within the law. *I
have not been stopped and questioned in any police matter for any reason.

Both times, I just hand my ID to the PO, look them straight in the eye, and
in an instant they know who I am. *One asked me a couple of verification
questions. *Then I watch the show with the other guys. *How the citizen
treats the officer. *How the officer treats the citizen. *One citizen was
good, the other was contentious and had the "Why aren't you out there
catching criminals instead of giving me a ticket" routine. *Both officers
were courteous and professional.

I have been on numerous ridealongs. *I love them, but only get about two a
year because I don't want anyone to claim favoritism. *But anyone can go on
these evenings patrolling with police to see just what they do, and how much
crap they do have to take from people with attitudes on a daily basis.

There are a lot of good police officers out there. *And there are bad ones.
And there are transitional ones who will not stay because of one reason or
the other, and move on to something else. *And then there are the power
freaks who just love being able to exert their power. *Most good street POs
move on to better departments and specialize in certain crimes. *So, the PO
you see on the street are the ones that either like it, or can't pass the
test to move up. *And some of them are frustrated because they think just
because they've been there ten years, they deserve the gift of promotion and
shouldn't have to pass no steenking test. *And there lies many problems.
Guys just putting in time.

Enter, John Q. Citizen. *Wannabe lawyer. *Frustrated businessman. *Henpecked
husband. *Bulldozer married woman. *Manhaters. *People who live a shady
lifestyle, but aren't doing anything bad at that moment. *Control freaks who
don't like being told to shut up and take their hands out of their pockets..
Or just angry unhappy people.

Every time I read someone's comments here downing cops, I know that were
their attitude to be traced back to its source, it wouldn't be a bad cop.
They're fired every day for mistreating citizens, but those citizens go on
and don't **** and moan for the rest of their lives. *Those citizens with an
attitude have an attitude about every little thing, and can be classified as
just unhappy human beings. *Little children who will fuss because they think
they didn't get the biggest piece of pie. *And it if wasn't that big bad cop
giving them a parking ticket for double parking for an hour in the airport
drop off area, it would be something else. *And ALL someone else's fault..

So, if you don't like cops, handle the situation yourself. *And if you run
into a PO, try to act decent for a change and see how that works. *Or carry
a weapon and dispense your own justice for as long as that lasts.

And maybe get some counseling for that attitude.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn good post...right on the mark.

Thanks for taking the time to do the writeup.

TMT

On Dec 23, 2:35 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with
that.

Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?

How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?

Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.

Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights.
We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.

You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend
himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in
a
bad movie.

My point is, why are we talking about Dave's definition of reality?
Or your, or Andrew's, or anyone else's?

Because, if you read the thread, that's what Dave and Steve were talking
about, while they were disparaging Andrew's, and to which I objected. It was
an unnecessary and sarcastic put-down after Andrew was making a pretty good
effort to express incredulity without being insulting. On top of it, their
remarks are based on baloney.

Steve says, "Enjoy your Pollyannish Utopia... Don't ferget yer rose colored
glasses when you go out." Dave says, "Then why do you presume to inject your
irrelevant fantasy world into reality so frequently?" Who is living in the
pollyanish [sic], utopian, irrelevant fantasy world? Not Andrew.







Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.

Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that
I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.

It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you
do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?

It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.

It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.

Exactly. The "accuracy" depends entirely on one's circumstances and
experiences.

So, does Dave sell drugs and live in a crack alley? He says there have only
been a couple of murders in his area since the mid-'90s, so, much more
likely, Dave is inclined to get more emotionally upset over the very remote
chance he'll be threatened with a gun, while probably doing nothing
comparable to defend his life in potential car accidents. All accidents
together rank 5th among causes of death. Homicides, all causes, rank 15th.
Car accidents alone rank somewhere around 9th. Firearms homicides rank
around 18th.

In other words, the REALITY is that you should spend a great deal more
effort protecting yourself from car accidents, including such things as the
five-point harness and roll cages I mentioned before, if you are going to
deal with the REAL relative threats. And for God's sake, stay away from
motorcycles: the per-mile death rate riding those things is 20 times higher
than for cars (NHTSA, April, 2003).

As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.

Sticking to reality, the real threat Andrew faces from armed criminals is
quite small, if you look at the figures for Australia. He faces a *much*
greater threat from a car accident and from many other kinds of avoidable
circumstances, including overeating. g So, as I said, he's living
rationally in the real world. Dave and Steve...well, they're entitled to
their emotional reactions. There are just enough gun threats and homicides
out there that one can carry a gun to defend himself and be within reason.
And that's their choice, as I've said repeatedly. This isn't a question of
rights. It's a question of what the more "reality" driven course of action
is.

Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality. In the case of
most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night. We incorporate those levels of danger into our list
of acceptable risks and get on with it. Heck, some people even ride
motorcycles. They have a *big* risk tolerance. I used to race sports cars,
ride motorcycles, and do lots of things that require a lot of risk
tolerance.

So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.

snip

You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather
live
in a fantasy world, like them?

Neither. Your gross numbers may not be another's particular reality.

Dave told us he lives in a fairly murder-free area. That appears to be his
"reality," in his own words.

snip

No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...

If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.

So, do you wear five-point harness, a Nomex suit, and have a roll cage in
your car? If not, why not? The risk of dying in a car accident has low
probability but high cost. If we applied your logic here, anyone who makes a
claim about what is a real threat and what is not (Dave and Steve), who
don't go to lengths comparable to carrying and training with a gun, with all
that entails, isn't being very consistent, is he? That is, unless he also
has an emotional motive regarding defense against armed criminals, as well
as a reality-based motive to protect his life.



You and I and Andrew do not feel the need to carry. Lucky us! I
certainly can see how others might, and I certainly can imagine
situations and circumstances where I definitely would.

Sure. So can I. I seriously doubt if Dave or Steve have a "need" that
exceeds their reality-based need to go to at least equal lengths in regard
to much more likely threats they face, but that's their business. I just
don't see how Dave or Steve get off claiming that Andrew is living a
fantasy.



Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a
little
back at him.

Tit for tat, eh?

I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Talking about reality...this is the reality.

TMT

Va. Tech families to lobby legislature By KRISTEN GELINEAU, Associated
Press Writer
Sun Dec 23

As he sat in a hospital, watching blood ooze from his son Colin's
gunshot wounds, Andrew Goddard negotiated with a higher power: Let my
son live, and I will do what I can to spare another parent this
torture.

Colin survived, despite the four bullets fired into him by Virginia
Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho.

Now his father is making good on the deal: He and relatives of others
killed or injured on the campus in Blacksburg will lobby for changes
to the state's gun and mental health laws during the General Assembly
session that begins Jan. 9.

Together, they hope to be a powerful lobbying force with the potential
to make changes in areas that have historically had gained little
traction with Virginia legislators.

"They stand in the position unlike no one else that will be in this
whole process," said state Sen. Kenneth Cuccinelli. "And they will get
listened to."

Since the April 16 shootings, in which Cho killed 32 others and
himself after a long history of mental illness, several of the
victims' families have demanded stricter oversight of gun purchases
and a revamping of the state's mental health system. Nine survivors
and 16 families of those killed signed a letter urging Congress to
strengthen the background check system for weapons purchases.

Cho was able to pass a background check and buy two guns despite
having been deemed mentally defective by a Virginia court. In
response, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed an executive order requiring
that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added
to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.

However, people can still buy guns through other means that require no
background check in Virginia, such as gun shows where scores of people
sell or swap firearms.

Efforts to close the so-called gun show loophole have failed
repeatedly, and even Andrew Goddard -- the most outspoken family member
on the issue -- acknowledges that getting lawmakers to close it this
year will be a struggle.

"It's a tremendous uphill battle," he said. "I have no doubt that
we're going to suffer severe defeats."

But Goddard is ready to fight. He is organizing an advocacy day next
month at the Capitol that will include a "lie-in," in which
participants will lie on the ground to represent the shooting victims.
His son plans to make a speech. And other families have already begun
speaking out during pre-session legislative meetings.

However, persuading Virginia lawmakers to impose any restrictions on
gun ownership is nearly impossible, said Stephen Farnsworth, a
political science professor at the University of Mary Washington in
Fredericksburg.

"The gun control issue is political dynamite in Virginia," Farnsworth
said. "There's no question that they are as effective a group of
lobbyists as one can imagine for gun control issues, but there are a
lot of people with a lot of money and a lot of interest in politicians
who are pro-gun in Virginia -- and that hasn't changed after the
Virginia Tech tragedy."

State Del. Jim Scott, who favors closing the gun show loophole, is
less certain.

"In any case of trying to change opinions, you really have to be well-
organized, focused and be sure that you have all the facts," Scott
said. "And my guess is they will be all of those."

The families have another factor on their side: emotional impact.

"A lot of what they bring to the table is a discomfort factor,"
Cuccinelli said. "You don't want to be ruling against families that
are in this kind of pain."

There was evidence of that discomfort at a recent meeting of lawmakers
and journalists, when several victims' relatives challenged a
legislator who opposes closing the loophole.

Joseph Samaha, whose daughter Reema was killed in the shootings, asked
state Sen.-elect Robert Hurt: "What is the fear of someone having to
go through the background check?"

Hurt responded that closing the loophole would infringe on a person's
right to possess a firearm.

"Is it a nuisance factor?" Samaha challenged.

Hurt paused, then said: "More important, it's a liberty factor."

The families will encounter many other lawmakers who share Hurt's
views, but they're determined to forge ahead.

"I am compelled to work on these issues so that no one has to suffer
the pain and loss that those parents and families have gone through
and continue to go through," said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily
survived a gunshot wound. "If the General Assembly had worked harder
and done what was right to protect innocent people, we might not have
lost as many lives as we have in the last number of years in all types
of gun violence."

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League,
acknowledged the families' pain, but plans to push lawmakers to
protect gun owners' rights as usual this year.

"They're certainly going to draw sympathy -- they have my sympathy -- to
have lost someone the way they did," he said of the families. "On the
other hand, we cannot be ruled as a nation by emotion. We have to look
at this thing logically, and to try to control gun shows from what
happened makes no sense. Cho did not get his guns from a gun show."

The families pushing to close the loophole are quick to point out
they're not anti-gun; several are gun owners themselves, including
Mike White, whose daughter Nicole was killed.

"We're not looking to take rights away from the individual that wants
to buy a gun and act responsibly," White said. "We're looking to keep
the criminal from easily purchasing the gun."

Greg and Linda Gwaltney, whose son Matthew was killed, also are gun
owners. They plan to push lawmakers to close the loophole and also
hope lawmakers will reform Virginia's mental health system.

The governor has already proposed more funding and other changes to
the state's mental health system that closely mirror the
recommendations of an independent panel that investigated the
shootings.

A lack of understanding of the system's complexities and pitfalls has
kept lawmakers from acting until now, said state Del. Phillip
Hamilton, an authority on mental health legislation. But the shootings
fast-tracked the issue to the top of the agenda, he said.

"If no Virginia Tech parent or victim even contacted us or came
forward, I think you're going to see some significant changes,"
Hamilton said.

The families are not uniform in their beliefs, however. Holly Sherman,
whose daughter Leslie was killed in the shootings, understands it may
be healing for some of the families to lobby for changes to gun and
mental health laws. But she considers it a futile effort.

Sherman hopes others will focus on what she feels are commonsense
measures: running public service announcements to educate parents
about potentially dangerous behavior in their children, ensuring
schools properly handle troubled students and holding surprise
emergency drills at schools.

"There are some very inexpensive and easy measures to take immediately
that can have as much or more positive effect than new laws for
lawyers to fight and/or give people more fodder for lawsuits," she
wrote in an e-mail.

But for Andrew Goddard, changing the laws is essential.

"If I can save one family from that or one family from standing by a
gravestone, then it's worth it," he said.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:17:14 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
You fear the cops more than the people the cops are there to protect you
from? Really?
I really am interested in your answer. You fear your cops more than you
fear your criminals? Tell me again where you live?

I've never had any problem talking to a USA'n, armed cop.
Maybe you know different cops than I know.
I also wonder about your non-response to this.

...perhaps, just perhaps, that shows that criminals aren't stupid, and
are deterred from crime if someone armed, or potentially armed, is in
the area. Hmmm.
and there you see the slippery slope...
Nothing slippery or slope about it. Criminals avoid getting hurt if at
all possible. You observed that cops are never around when crimes are
committed. I'd start by saying you're obviously wrong but yes, there is
probably a strong correlation. The difference in your POV and mine, is
that I see it as a deterrance factor, you apparently see it as some sort
of psychic avoidance thing or whatever.

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. So, I'm on my own. If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

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

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

David (not Dave, though)

Indeed

Gunner, ex cop




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

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

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:49:50 -0600, David R. Birch wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:

I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. So, I'm on my own. If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

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

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

Yup. As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops can't be
everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow that's not a truth or
relevant to self-defense unless I, specifically, have personally needed
one who wasn't around. Doesn't work that way, again, that's like
pretending that flat tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

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

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 24, 9:06 am, Dave Hinz wrote:
I don't actually care where the cop is when I need them, they're not
where I need them. *So, I'm on my own. *If I'm banned from defending
myself, the only person made safer by that ban, is the criminal who
ignores laws like "don't shoot people" and all that.

Dave...give us examples of how the cops were not there when you needed
them.
? Cops aren't there to prevent crimes, they're there to investigate
crimes that have already happened and catch the bad guys who did them.
The only way to have cops always there when you need them is to have
LOTS of cops everywhere. Spain under Franco was like that, and the
former East Germany. I don't want that.

Yup. *As usual, too_many_trolls mistakes a simple truth (cops can't be
everywhere at all times) and pretends that somehow that's not a truth or
relevant to self-defense unless I, specifically, have personally needed
one who wasn't around. *Doesn't work that way, again, that's like
pretending that flat tires don't happen if you haven't had one.

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

Why does this not surprise me?

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

TMT

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

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

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

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

Why does this not surprise me?

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

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

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

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

David

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

Steve ;-)