|
Take yer gun to the mall
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 |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:05:46 -0800, "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 There is nothing at the mall I want enough to suffer the milling cellphone-bleating flock this time of year. My CCW is to defend myself and mine, other citizens have the same option available to them. I shoot rather better than decently but I'm a private citizen, not a cop or a sojer. Defense of the public is not on my agenda, nor may I even legally do that in MN. YMMV. Try to minimize collateral casualties, please. It isn't trivially easy to do in a crowd sit. You must consider fire drawn to yours as well as what's behind your target. I don't know anyone good enough to be sure of one-shot-drop with a concealable piece on a moving target in a ****sit. Even rapid fire from a semiauto, 3 rounds per second from anything capable of one-shot-stop with attendant recoil limiting rate of delivery of accurate fire, will draw return fire if the first couple of rounds don't end the debate ... and the other guy is probably a lousy shot. Not sayin' you shouldn't do it, just sayin'... |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:48:33 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote: On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:05:46 -0800, "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 There is nothing at the mall I want enough to suffer the milling cellphone-bleating flock this time of year. My CCW is to defend myself and mine, other citizens have the same option available to them. I shoot rather better than decently but I'm a private citizen, not a cop or a sojer. Defense of the public is not on my agenda, nor may I even legally do that in MN. YMMV. Try to minimize collateral casualties, please. It isn't trivially easy to do in a crowd sit. You must consider fire drawn to yours as well as what's behind your target. I don't know anyone good enough to be sure of one-shot-drop with a concealable piece on a moving target in a ****sit. Even rapid fire from a semiauto, 3 rounds per second from anything capable of one-shot-stop with attendant recoil limiting rate of delivery of accurate fire, will draw return fire if the first couple of rounds don't end the debate ... and the other guy is probably a lousy shot. Not sayin' you shouldn't do it, just sayin'... Better the perp maybe shoot a few bystanders, while trying to prevent you from punching his ticket, than shooting a ****load with no one trying to stop him. Judgment call, only each individual can make. My prayers and best wishes to anyone put in that situation. Keep in mind..that if you ever find yourself in a stand up, High Noon, fair gun fight..your tactics simply suck. Shooting the sumbitch in the back, or head, is an approved and encouraged method of pest eradication. If he is capping off rounds at the innocent, shouting "Freeze" is simply a waste of perfectly good air, better used in making that perfect sight picture and squeeze from cover. Gunner |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
Don Foreman 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 There is nothing at the mall I want enough to suffer the milling cellphone-bleating flock this time of year. Ditto that, I never visit a mall between Thanksgiving and New Year. In any case, the more innocent shoppers who get slaughtered by a perp the sooner sanity returns to Malls ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
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 Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... Andrew VK3BFA. |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote: I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon. Steve Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... That may be your impression, particularly because such shootings come in clusters and the media jumps all over them like each one is the World Cup or the Superbowl, but the fact is they're extremely rare. How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... As for coping with it, again, the chances of being caught in one of those situations is orders of magnitude less than that of being hit by a car and killed on the highway. That doesn't make the shootings less dramatic but it does permeate one's consciousness that you're looking at something that's remarkable because it's so exceptional, and that the attention paid to it has more to do with the media's (and the public's) hunger for melodrama. If you want paranoia, there are parts of most large cities into which you could venture for your bottle of milk and have much more reason to be paranoid. Most of us just don't go there. Suburban shopping malls are not where the real problems lie. I don't make light of what you're saying, but I think you'll find that such rare-but-dangerous situations are treated similarly around the world, wherever they're encountered. Interviews with Israelis who have had narrow escapes from suicide bombers provide a much more significant example of how people react to higher incidences of such horrors. They shock and give one something to think about, but the fact is that the chance of *you* being caught in one is statistically remote. So life goes on, almost without a hiccup. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
Well said, especially the comments on how the media makes a bad situation
even worse. -Carl "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote: I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon. Steve Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... That may be your impression, particularly because such shootings come in clusters and the media jumps all over them like each one is the World Cup or the Superbowl, but the fact is they're extremely rare. How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... As for coping with it, again, the chances of being caught in one of those situations is orders of magnitude less than that of being hit by a car and killed on the highway. That doesn't make the shootings less dramatic but it does permeate one's consciousness that you're looking at something that's remarkable because it's so exceptional, and that the attention paid to it has more to do with the media's (and the public's) hunger for melodrama. If you want paranoia, there are parts of most large cities into which you could venture for your bottle of milk and have much more reason to be paranoid. Most of us just don't go there. Suburban shopping malls are not where the real problems lie. I don't make light of what you're saying, but I think you'll find that such rare-but-dangerous situations are treated similarly around the world, wherever they're encountered. Interviews with Israelis who have had narrow escapes from suicide bombers provide a much more significant example of how people react to higher incidences of such horrors. They shock and give one something to think about, but the fact is that the chance of *you* being caught in one is statistically remote. So life goes on, almost without a hiccup. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 10, 5:36 am, 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 Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... Andrew VK3BFA. Perhaps ask some people in London England? I understand personal violence there (less murders, of course) is three times that in the U.S. Now _that_ must be a madhouse. dennis in nca |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 10, 6:21 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , 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 Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ Don't you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that does not permit the populace to be armed to cope with its nuttier members, or the criminal element? -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. What??? You mean sticking your head in the sand isn't "good enough for you?" dennis in nca |
Take yer gun to the mall
|
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 10, 9:24 am, "*" wrote:
wrote in article ... Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... A while back, the liberals insisted on the rights of the mentally challenged - who were being housed as much for their own protection as that of innocent civilians - to be mainstreamed into society.... ....and they were all released from a protective custody that was, in actuality, a two-way street that protected the mentally-incapacitated from themselves, and the innocent from the mentall-incapacitated/dangerous. Of course, the liberals are NOW whining about the plight of these "....poor, often mentally-challenged, street people....." - a class which they, themselves, created. One - not necessarily the entire - answer would be to again house some of these people who are now roaming the streets - threatening innocent people, shoplifting and stealing to survive, commiting crime, etc. Everybody would be better protected by such a move.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You've hit one of the nails directly on the head. although it was under Regan or Nixon (no veto) that California did this. dennis in nca |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Dec 10, 8:48 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...i/Luke_Woodham -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? And the fact that when citizens DO help control the situation, while armed, this almost never gets re- ported by the media. And also ignored are the thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a violent crime. Anyone looking around at their world and saying "it can't happen here and therfore we don't need it" is either blind, or a selfish ******* (or bitch) uncaring of others subject to the readily available crime statistics, or both. dennis in nca |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:35:33 -0800, Gunner
wrote: Not sayin' you shouldn't do it, just sayin'... Better the perp maybe shoot a few bystanders, while trying to prevent you from punching his ticket, than shooting a ****load with no one trying to stop him. Judgment call, only each individual can make. Exactly, and I think you know what I'm sayin': don't take a shot in a sit like that unless you're damned sure what the effect of that shot will be. To do otherwise is to become part of the problem. My prayers and best wishes to anyone put in that situation. Keep in mind..that if you ever find yourself in a stand up, High Noon, fair gun fight..your tactics simply suck. I avoid "fair" fights of any kind whenever possible, and I've always found it possible one way or another. Shooting the sumbitch in the back, or head, is an approved and encouraged method of pest eradication. The laws, prosecutors and courts of MN strongly disagree. If he is capping off rounds at the innocent, shouting "Freeze" is simply a waste of perfectly good air, and a possibly noble but very foolish way to become the next chosen target. |
Take yer gun to the mall
A while back, the liberals insisted on the rights of the mentally challenged - who were being housed as much for their own protection as that of innocent civilians - to be mainstreamed into society.... ....and they were all released from a protective custody that was, in actuality, a two-way street that protected the mentally-incapacitated from themselves, and the innocent from the mentall-incapacitated/dangerous. Of course, the liberals are NOW whining about the plight of these "....poor, often mentally-challenged, street people....." - a class which they, themselves, created. One - not necessarily the entire - answer would be to again house some of these people who are now roaming the streets - threatening innocent people, shoplifting and stealing to survive, commiting crime, etc. Everybody would be better protected by such a move.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You've hit one of the nails directly on the head. although it was under Regan or Nixon (no veto) that California did this. dennis in nca it was under Regan, it was conservatives not liberals, and the "no new taxes" arm of the conservative movement is a strong force in preventing proper care for mentally ill, so we get to enjoy them as homeless folks sleeping in doorways downtown - It is most assuredly a bit disingenuous, to say the least, to blame this on "liberals", though I know that many use the word "liberal" for any person with whom they disagree. Of course, that not only prevents communication on issues, but it corrupts the language, we have already lost the use of the words Christian and Patriot - both now carry heavily loaded political meanings that neither carried a decade ago - and both of the overlaid meanings are abhorrent to me at least. So, please, if you are going to argue politics instead of discussing metal working, at least make a small attempt to steer towards objectivity and leave the slathering invective to other venues. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:52:22 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 05:36:45 -0800 (PST), wrote: How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... Andrew VK3BFA. If you were to visit, I think your impresssion would be very different than the one you've formed from the sensational media and from a very few but very vocal gun owners. Except for perhaps a few gang-infested inner-city neighborhoods, the USA does not rattle with gunfire as the media might lead you to believe. One might hear gunfire in the woods, fields and wetlands during hunting season, not otherwise. Yeah, the media show only the negative happenings in the societies of the world. TV is -NOT- real, boys and girls. I live in a major metropolitan area, the Minneapols-St. Paul (Minnesota) seven-county metro area. I have never in the 40 years I've lived here seen a gun even brandished, much less fired, in any public place other than a range. It is safe to go to any mall when it is open. Children go to them routinely. Malls have security guards to curb shoplifting, but they are very rarely armed. I regularly hear them on the 4th of July and New Years Eve (idiots), but only occasionally from the bush (BLM land all over the place here so there are hunters in season.) people demonstrably get crazy. There was a thread on this NG after Katrina re the question of whether or not it is moral to steal from another in such a situation. The majority of posters thought it was moral for the imprudent to steal from the prudent in such a situation. Wow! I secured my carry permit shortly after that. I don't recall that point in the discussions, Don. Can you give me a reference point to google? I thought folks here were much more sane. I regard the likelihood of an armed intrusion into my house as vanishingly small. There hasn't been one in my community in 40 years as far as I know. My pistol is for insurance, both in the house and out hiking/photographing nature. I carry auto insurance for the same long odds of something happening. shrug -- My future starts when I wake up every morning... Every day I find something creative to do with my life. -- Miles Davis |
Take yer gun to the mall
Larry Jaques wrote:
Yeah, the media show only the negative happenings in the societies of the world. TV is -NOT- real, boys and girls. I believe the phrase is, "If it bleeds, it leads", in the news business. I regard the likelihood of an armed intrusion into my house as vanishingly small. There hasn't been one in my community in 40 years as far as I know. My pistol is for insurance, both in the house and out hiking/photographing nature. I carry auto insurance for the same long odds of something happening. shrug Speaking of your house all sane peoople have fire insurance on their though we do not expect the house to burn and actively try to prevent such a thing. Fire insurance for a house that can be replaced, arms to protect a life that can not be replaced. Wes |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Doug Miller" wrote in message t... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? The combined population of those three towns is 49,158. That's 1.63 * 10^-4 of the US population and the shootings you're talking about are spread out over a period of just over 10 years at three distant locations. I think that falls deeply into the "most extreme and remote possibilities" category. If, to be generous, 100 people at each location actually saw what was going on, and assuming even more generously that each one of them could have done something about it, that's 1/1,000,000 of the US population who, if they were armed, in position to shoot, and actually *did* shoot, might have intervened on one occassion in ten years. Whether they would have been successful is another question entirely. If you're armed for the purpose of intervening in such events that means your chance of encountering one is roughly one in ten million per year. That falls into the category of "statistically it makes little sense." The legitimate reason to be armed is for your own defense. If your idea is that you're going to protect other people from murderous madmen, you're in cloud-cuckooland. It isn't a question of whether you pay attention to the news, Doug. It's a matter of having a realistic measure of the probabilities. What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting Yes, we know about that shooting, which was stopped by off-duty cops, not ordinary students. John Lott himself was here on RCM to tell us all about it: http://timlambert.org/2003/01/roshhuntress/ -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message et... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? The combined population of those three towns is 49,158. My point exactly: you *don't* have to be in the most dangerous parts of the most dangerous cities for stuff like that to happen. That's 1.63 * 10^-4 of the US population and the shootings you're talking about are spread out over a period of just over 10 years at three distant locations. I think that falls deeply into the "most extreme and remote possibilities" category. You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. I mentioned those only because they were the first three that sprang to mind. If those were the only such events of the last ten years, then you'd have a point. They're not, and you know it. If, to be generous, 100 people at each location actually saw what was going on, and assuming even more generously that each one of them could have done something about it, that's 1/1,000,000 of the US population who, if they were armed, in position to shoot, and actually *did* shoot, might have intervened on one occassion in ten years. Whether they would have been successful is another question entirely. I wasn't arguing with you over the likelihood of an armed citizen being able to stop such an event. I'm just objecting to your egregiously, absurdly false claim that such dangers are confined to "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities." Certainly they are more common there, but manifestly they are not *unique* there. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Take yer gun to the mall
That's funny!
The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of gunshots in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their handgun ban). I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at the Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice: http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp All night long... pop, pop, pop. "Don Foreman" wrote in message If you were to visit, I think your impresssion would be very different than the one you've formed from the sensational media and from a very few but very vocal gun owners. Except for perhaps a few gang-infested inner-city neighborhoods, the USA does not rattle with gunfire as the media might lead you to believe. One might hear gunfire in the woods, fields and wetlands during hunting season, not otherwise. I live in a major metropolitan area, the Minneapols-St. Paul (Minnesota) seven-county metro area. I have never in the 40 years I've lived here seen a gun even brandished, much less fired, in any public place other than a range. It is safe to go to any mall when it is open. Children go to them routinely. Malls have security guards to curb shoplifting, but they are very rarely armed. Between 1% and 2% of the people in my state have CCW permits. Not all that have permits actually carry routinely, frequently or even occasionally. I have a permit but do not carry because I feel no need to do so. I have the permit for two reasons. First reason is convenience: the permit frees me from some pesky rules regarding transport of my guns to and from shooting ranges. The second is in the highly unlikely event of a major disaster like Katrina, when people demonstrably get crazy. There was a thread on this NG after Katrina re the question of whether or not it is moral to steal from another in such a situation. The majority of posters thought it was moral for the imprudent to steal from the prudent in such a situation. Wow! I secured my carry permit shortly after that. I regard the likelihood of an armed intrusion into my house as vanishingly small. There hasn't been one in my community in 40 years as far as I know. I have guns for the same reason you have radios: because I enjoy them. Shooting, like machining and welding, is a skill that can always be improved but never can be completely mastered. The fun is in the quest. I enjoy firing my guns reasonably well just as I enjoy making a nice job of a tricky weld or machining something that fits oh so nice. A correspondent and I frequently email photos of targets back and forth. Our recent targets look a lot better than those of only a year ago ... and next year's targets will be better yet. The current challenge is to punch a hole in a dime at 100 meters with one round. One fouling round and one wind-check round is permitted before loading one round to fire for record. A miss or a nick flunks, don't get another try-for-record until next range visit. Only a clean hole completely surrounded by metal counts. When we accomplish that, we'll then move out to 200 meters, and so on... Accomplished long-range shooters put several rounds thru the same hole at ranges considerably beyond 100 meters. We're not there ... yet. |
Take yer gun to the mall
David Courtney wrote:
That's funny! The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of gunshots in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their handgun ban). I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at the Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice: http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp All night long... pop, pop, pop. According to recent reports, DC is only getting worse (go figure...). |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
Lew Hartswick wrote: wrote: Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ Andrew VK3BFA. Mostly we know what the problem is. It's that the courts are so full of "bleeding heart liberals" (like those in England and Australia) that the "nutters" are on the street instead of an instution where they wouldn't be any threat. ...lew... Here in TN we insert them into a coffin; cheaper and more permanent than any institution ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
Ed, some of what you say is true, but as an American born and brought up in
Boston and now living in Europe, I have the advantage of looking at my country from a distance. This has given me a perspective that an American living in the US does not have. You are are too close to the problem, which creates a certain bias in your view point. The American society is more violent than the one in Europe. This difference in the level of violence is real, not imagined. I am not a social scientist, so I have no intention of spouting BS on the cause of this difference, but we are more violent. In point of fact, we are more of everything. Americans never do anything a little bit. Maybe we are not a nation of extremists, but we do work at it. Steve "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote: I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon. Steve Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like this. That's why you almost never hear of it. I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... That may be your impression, particularly because such shootings come in clusters and the media jumps all over them like each one is the World Cup or the Superbowl, but the fact is they're extremely rare. How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... As for coping with it, again, the chances of being caught in one of those situations is orders of magnitude less than that of being hit by a car and killed on the highway. That doesn't make the shootings less dramatic but it does permeate one's consciousness that you're looking at something that's remarkable because it's so exceptional, and that the attention paid to it has more to do with the media's (and the public's) hunger for melodrama. If you want paranoia, there are parts of most large cities into which you could venture for your bottle of milk and have much more reason to be paranoid. Most of us just don't go there. Suburban shopping malls are not where the real problems lie. I don't make light of what you're saying, but I think you'll find that such rare-but-dangerous situations are treated similarly around the world, wherever they're encountered. Interviews with Israelis who have had narrow escapes from suicide bombers provide a much more significant example of how people react to higher incidences of such horrors. They shock and give one something to think about, but the fact is that the chance of *you* being caught in one is statistically remote. So life goes on, almost without a hiccup. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 5:05 pm, "SteveB" wrote: I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have lessened the carnage. If you got a CCW, carry your weapon. Steve Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ I know its historical for you people, wild west, Hollywood, etc etc..something in your constitution, but don't you wonder WHY shopping centre massacres are a almost weekly occurrence.... How do you cope with this, the paranoia of buying a bottle of milk? - there MUST be some alternative besides being armed to the teeth... Andrew VK3BFA. One time, I saw a TV interview with Louis L'Amour. (sp) He was a Wild West writer. He said the reason people liked his books were that they were historically correct. He said Hollywood's depiction of the Wild West was terrible. Cowardly townfolks cowering in the shadows. At that time a lot of the men had come from the War Between the States, and knew guns and killing very well. He said that very frequently, cowboy justice was meted out in a dark alley or behind a building, and the sheriff didn't think twice because it was one less piece of trash he had to deal with. It still is like that in rural America, where roaming around on someone's property at night is a recipe for disaster. Different than in the cities. I think the predators prefer large population areas because prey don't put up much of a fight. As for coping with the paranoia ......... it ain't paranoia when they actually ARE out to get you. And, if you ever notice on those African lion shows, it's always the liberal ones dancing lah tee dah on the outskirts of the herd and not paying attention that end up as lunch meat. There's a difference between being paranoid and being realistic. With paranoia, there is no actual threat. Steve |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Pete C." wrote in message ... David Courtney wrote: That's funny! The only place I've ever been where I heard literally dozens of gunshots in one night... was in Washington, DC (after they passes their handgun ban). I have no idea what the area is like now, but we were staying at the Hyatt Regency... which was pretty nice: http://washingtonregency.hyatt.com/h...tels/index.jsp All night long... pop, pop, pop. According to recent reports, DC is only getting worse (go figure...). But how can that be with all those laws? Steve g |
Take yer gun to the mall
"rigger" wrote And the fact that when citizens DO help control the situation, while armed, this almost never gets re- ported by the media. And also ignored are the thousand of times each year (acknowledged by the Dept. of Justice and FBI) guns are used to thwart a violent crime. Just as an aside, the press totally ignored Denzell Washington. He was visiting a military hospital. He was visiting one of the wings that the families stay in. He asked how much it would cost to build one. One point five million was his answer. He wrote a check on the spot. All those other perverts and kooks in Hollywood fill the papers daily with their antics. I guess even man bites dog stories are out of vogue now. Steve |
Take yer gun to the mall
Mainly, because that particular story isn't exactly true... not the way
it's written: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/denzel.asp "SteveB" wrote in message ... Just as an aside, the press totally ignored Denzell Washington. He was visiting a military hospital. He was visiting one of the wings that the families stay in. He asked how much it would cost to build one. One point five million was his answer. He wrote a check on the spot. All those other perverts and kooks in Hollywood fill the papers daily with their antics. I guess even man bites dog stories are out of vogue now. Steve |
Take yer gun to the mall
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Adolph Hitler |
Take yer gun to the mall
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:36:12 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: I don't recall that point in the discussions, Don. Can you give me a reference point to google? I thought folks here were much more sane. My point. Sanity seems to prevail less under extreme circumstances. The only reference I can offer is date: it was during the aftermath of Katrina. |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Doug Miller" wrote in message et... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message . net... In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote: We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've chosen to stay where the danger is. Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in the US. Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"?? The combined population of those three towns is 49,158. My point exactly: you *don't* have to be in the most dangerous parts of the most dangerous cities for stuff like that to happen. Well, what are you arguing with? I said that it makes no sense statistically. And then I showed you the numbers on your examples. If you're living your life on one-in-a-million probabilities, Doug, you should be investing heavily in the lottery. According to the NSC, your chances of being killed in a firearm assault are 1:324. Your chances of dying from accidental poisoning are twice as high. Your chances of dying from taking a fall are nearly twice as high as dying in a firearm assault, and your chance of dying in a car accident are four times as high. I don't feel the *need* to carry a gun for the same reason I don't feel the *need* to hire someone to taste my food before eating, or to have myself fitted with springs to prevent injury in a fall, or to have a NASCAR-type roll cage installed in my family sedan. Likewise, we don't *need* to carry a gun, unless we buy milk in stupid places or hang out where the danger from gun violence is known to be high. We may *want* to carry one, for a variety of reasons. But most of them make little or no sense on the basis of probabilities. That's 1.63 * 10^-4 of the US population and the shootings you're talking about are spread out over a period of just over 10 years at three distant locations. I think that falls deeply into the "most extreme and remote possibilities" category. You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. I mentioned those only because they were the first three that sprang to mind. If those were the only such events of the last ten years, then you'd have a point. They're not, and you know it. How many more such examples do you want to add to the list? You asked me if I pay attention to the news and then you gave examples of wacko mass murders. Did you intend to give examples of something else? Because the wacko mass murders are too rare to bother about. If you're going to start adding up all of the individual reasons for having a gun, then pay attention to the other things I said. I said the legitimate reason for carrying a gun is self-defense, not preventing mass murders, because you'll never get a chance in your lifetime, or in 10,000 lifetimes, to encounter one of those. And I said that your chances of needing a gun in any case are so vanishingly small that it makes no sense, statistically, unless you choose to live or work somewhere dangerous. But purely rational odds-making is not the only issue on self-defense. If you want to carry, by all means, carry. I was responding to the OP who wondered why we have to carry guns to go out for milk. And my response is, we don't have to carry. Statistically, there is little rational basis for carring a gun, unless we stupidly get our milk in dangerous places. As Don said, and as I've experienced, most people have almost no chance of ever encountering a drawn gun except on a shooting range. And that's the fact. If, to be generous, 100 people at each location actually saw what was going on, and assuming even more generously that each one of them could have done something about it, that's 1/1,000,000 of the US population who, if they were armed, in position to shoot, and actually *did* shoot, might have intervened on one occassion in ten years. Whether they would have been successful is another question entirely. I wasn't arguing with you over the likelihood of an armed citizen being able to stop such an event. I'm just objecting to your egregiously, absurdly false claim that such dangers are confined to "the dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities." Certainly they are more common there, but manifestly they are not *unique* there. I didn't say they're confined there. I said that, except for such dangerous places, it makes little sense statistically. And that's the fact, too. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
"Steve Lusardi" wrote in message ... Ed, some of what you say is true, but as an American born and brought up in Boston and now living in Europe, I have the advantage of looking at my country from a distance. This has given me a perspective that an American living in the US does not have. You are are too close to the problem, which creates a certain bias in your view point. The American society is more violent than the one in Europe. This difference in the level of violence is real, not imagined. I am not a social scientist, so I have no intention of spouting BS on the cause of this difference, but we are more violent. In point of fact, we are more of everything. Americans never do anything a little bit. Maybe we are not a nation of extremists, but we do work at it. Steve No doubt this is a more violent country overall. But most of what you're talking about is different emotional reactions to unexpected deaths. We react differently, that is, based on the *cause* of deaths, not really the number of deaths, the "quantity" of violence, in this case. Back in the late '60s, when Europe's per-km highway death rate was running 40% or so higher than that of the US, I used to ask my friends in Europe how they cope with so much risk on the roads. They didn't understand what I was talking about. They'd incorporated that much risk of unexpected death into their lives and just went on with them. Now that Europe has lower per-km death rates, you seem to have incorporated *that* into your expectations just as easily. We react differently to these things, and it's all emotional. Our total rate of unexpected deaths is of the same order as that of Europe, although somewhat higher on most counts. But we've built our emotional expectations around these rates, just as Europe used to cope with its higher highway death rates. One thing that most people outside of the US don't realize is how concentrated our violence is, geographically. Take away the hot spots and the numbers start looking like those of Europe. Stay away from the hotspots, and it *feels* more like the levels of safety you expect in Europe. My experience with this, BTW, is based on having been a student in Europe back when your highway death rates were so high. -- Ed Huntress |
Take yer gun to the mall
In article ,
"Steve Lusardi" wrote: Ed, some of what you say is true, but as an American born and brought up in Boston and now living in Europe, I have the advantage of looking at my country from a distance. This has given me a perspective that an American living in the US does not have. You are are too close to the problem, which creates a certain bias in your view point. The American society is more violent than the one in Europe. This difference in the level of violence is real, not imagined. Was WW1 violent? WW2? Ever hear of Bosnia? Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
Take yer gun to the mall
"David Courtney" wrote in message . .. Mainly, because that particular story isn't exactly true... not the way it's written: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/denzel.asp I have been corrected. My comments about the other Hollywood low lifes stands, and I doubt if that can be debated by Snopes or anyone. Steve |
Take yer gun to the mall
nick hull wrote:
In article , Lew Hartswick wrote: wrote: Dont you wonder, in your more lucid moments, late at night (if you have them) thats there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where the populace need to be armed to cope with the nuttier members........ Andrew VK3BFA. Mostly we know what the problem is. It's that the courts are so full of "bleeding heart liberals" (like those in England and Australia) that the "nutters" are on the street instead of an instution where they wouldn't be any threat. ...lew... Here in TN we insert them into a coffin; cheaper and more permanent than any institution ;) Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/ What part of TN ? I particularly enjoy it when the media reports another "gang related" shooting here in Memphis ... AFAIC they can wage all the war they want on each other . I just wish they'd quit shooting innocent citizens in their crossfire. And I too am permitted to carry - and do , except where the law sez I can't . -- Snag aka OSG #1 '90 Ultra , "Strider" The road goes on forever ... none to one to reply |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter