"Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Dunno, strabo. If anyone ever wrote and enforced laws that made sense, we
might find out. But when they pass laws to prevent committed psychotics from
buying guns over the counter, and then don't bother to put the names of
those people in the database, you have to wonder if they're serious.
Likewise, when they record the serial numbers of guns at the time of sale
and then the ATF doesn't track guns confiscated in crimes back to the
source, to prosecute the proxy buyers, you have to wonder if they have the
sense that God gave a grape.

The whole system is so riddled with holes and lapses of judgment that no one
really knows if we could stem the use of guns in crime, or not. So far, it's
all a bunch of political posturing and falling down on the real job. It's a
political farce masquerading as crime prevention.


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it is, the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

The definition of nuts if left to a liberal would include 40% of the
population. Just an estiment.

Theft, straw purchases, illegal sales will always work for a prohibited
person.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Dunno, strabo. If anyone ever wrote and enforced laws that made sense, we
might find out. But when they pass laws to prevent committed psychotics
from
buying guns over the counter, and then don't bother to put the names of
those people in the database, you have to wonder if they're serious.
Likewise, when they record the serial numbers of guns at the time of sale
and then the ATF doesn't track guns confiscated in crimes back to the
source, to prosecute the proxy buyers, you have to wonder if they have the
sense that God gave a grape.

The whole system is so riddled with holes and lapses of judgment that no
one
really knows if we could stem the use of guns in crime, or not. So far,
it's
all a bunch of political posturing and falling down on the real job. It's
a
political farce masquerading as crime prevention.


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.


The definition of nuts if left to a liberal would include 40% of the
population. Just an estiment.

One that comes right off the top of your head, at that. d8-) Since the
righties are the same ones who say that liberals want nutcases to run around
loose, I think that this is a prediction that one might make either way,
depending on which point one is trying to make. In neither case is it based
on only facts, only imagination.


Theft, straw purchases, illegal sales will always work for a prohibited
person.

They certainly do now. But there aren't any credible laws on the books that
could prevent them.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Dunno, strabo. If anyone ever wrote and enforced laws that made sense,
we
might find out. But when they pass laws to prevent committed psychotics
from
buying guns over the counter, and then don't bother to put the names of
those people in the database, you have to wonder if they're serious.
Likewise, when they record the serial numbers of guns at the time of
sale
and then the ATF doesn't track guns confiscated in crimes back to the
source, to prosecute the proxy buyers, you have to wonder if they have
the
sense that God gave a grape.

The whole system is so riddled with holes and lapses of judgment that no
one
really knows if we could stem the use of guns in crime, or not. So far,
it's
all a bunch of political posturing and falling down on the real job.
It's
a
political farce masquerading as crime prevention.


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're
criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may
be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.


The definition of nuts if left to a liberal would include 40% of the
population. Just an estiment.

One that comes right off the top of your head, at that. d8-) Since the
righties are the same ones who say that liberals want nutcases to run
around
loose, I think that this is a prediction that one might make either way,
depending on which point one is trying to make. In neither case is it
based
on only facts, only imagination.


Theft, straw purchases, illegal sales will always work for a prohibited
person.

They certainly do now. But there aren't any credible laws on the books
that
could prevent them.

We had a good example of that thing in action this weekend. It was reported
that 45 people were shot in a few days in Chicago, if I heard the report
correctly. Chicago is one of the cities with the strictest handgun laws in
the country. So we have a perfect example of law having no effect on
preventing crime. This happens so often that it's hard to believe anyone can
still believe that gun control actually has any effect on crime. I compare
it to the 10 round magazine limit we have in California. Even though there
is sufficient evidence that this regulation has no effect whatsoever on
crime California continues to keep this law in place when the rest of the
country has let it lapse. It is the same with gun control laws. No matter
how strict they are those with a criminal mentality will have and use guns
despite the presence of laws prohibiting them. Adding more laws will be just
as ineffective as the current ones.

Hawke

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.

Right! Most homicides seem to be gangsta's killing gangsta's though
there are sometimes collateral casualties.

I'd prefer "deterrent" to "credible threat". Predators look for easy
prey. See prolific writings by Massad Ayoob if you want cites.
Becoming a gunsel reduces one to the level of the criminal scumbags.
Killing must be a last resort for responsible citizens. It is not a
solution in general and is quite rarely a necessity in particular.
That said, peaceful citizens able to defend themselves are less easy
prey and we must retain the right to not be easy prey.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:39:00 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.

Right! Most homicides seem to be gangsta's killing gangsta's though
there are sometimes collateral casualties.

I'd prefer "deterrent" to "credible threat". Predators look for easy
prey. See prolific writings by Massad Ayoob if you want cites.
Becoming a gunsel reduces one to the level of the criminal scumbags.
Killing must be a last resort for responsible citizens. It is not a
solution in general and is quite rarely a necessity in particular.
That said, peaceful citizens able to defend themselves are less easy
prey and we must retain the right to not be easy prey.


One should not forget the "halo" effect either of an area with many
legally armed citizens.

The bad guys are unable to determine who is carrying, so tend to find
other crimes to commit that dont involve direct contact with their
victims.

some years ago, Detroit had a very large and growing rape rate.
The chief of police at that time, offered free firearms training and
safety classes to women, and many hundreds took advantage to take
them.
The newspapers and media carried the story in depth about how many
women were now trained in use of firearms, and they were buying guns
to keep at home.

The rate of rapes in homes dropped like an anvil down the well.

The rape rate outside the home rose nearly an equal amount.

See..Michigan didnt have much of a CCW process and it was nearly
impossible for a woman to get one.

This is the same reason armed robberies dropped like a stone in
Florida after they started their CCW issuing. However it DID go up a
significantly large amount amoung tourists driving rental cars.
Criminals realized that those people would be unlikely to be armed.

It got so bad that they removed the car rental decals from rental
cars, to make it harder for the criminals to profile a helpless victim

Then armed robberies again dropped like a rock.

If you are a criminal, and you know your area has many many
outstanding CCW weapons carriers..are you willig to tae the chance
youcan pick them out in a crowd of potential victims?

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Hawke wrote:

Chicago is one of the cities with the strictest handgun laws in
the country. So we have a perfect example of law having no effect on
preventing crime. This happens so often that it's hard to believe anyone can
still believe that gun control actually has any effect on crime.

Hawke

But Hawke, They don't realy think it'll reduce crime, they just can't
stand the idea of GUNS. It's just a "good" sounding reason to start
to eliminate all guns.
...lew...

Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it
is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're
criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number
of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may
be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.

Right! Most homicides seem to be gangsta's killing gangsta's though
there are sometimes collateral casualties.

I'd prefer "deterrent" to "credible threat". Predators look for easy
prey. See prolific writings by Massad Ayoob if you want cites.
Becoming a gunsel reduces one to the level of the criminal scumbags.
Killing must be a last resort for responsible citizens. It is not a
solution in general and is quite rarely a necessity in particular.
That said, peaceful citizens able to defend themselves are less easy
prey and we must retain the right to not be easy prey.


One should not forget the "halo" effect either of an area with many
legally armed citizens.

The bad guys are unable to determine who is carrying, so tend to find
other crimes to commit that dont involve direct contact with their
victims.

some years ago, Detroit had a very large and growing rape rate.
The chief of police at that time, offered free firearms training and
safety classes to women, and many hundreds took advantage to take
them.
The newspapers and media carried the story in depth about how many
women were now trained in use of firearms, and they were buying guns
to keep at home.

The rate of rapes in homes dropped like an anvil down the well.

The rape rate outside the home rose nearly an equal amount.

See..Michigan didnt have much of a CCW process and it was nearly
impossible for a woman to get one.

This is the same reason armed robberies dropped like a stone in
Florida after they started their CCW issuing. However it DID go up a
significantly large amount amoung tourists driving rental cars.
Criminals realized that those people would be unlikely to be armed.

It got so bad that they removed the car rental decals from rental
cars, to make it harder for the criminals to profile a helpless victim

Then armed robberies again dropped like a rock.

If you are a criminal, and you know your area has many many
outstanding CCW weapons carriers..are you willig to tae the chance
youcan pick them out in a crowd of potential victims?

Gunner

At first glance that is a plausible argument. If more citizens carry guns
criminals will limit their crimes because they are afraid of picking on an
armed citizen. Sounds good but in reality that is bull****. Why? Because
statistically it doesn't work. There are not enough armed citizens to make a
dent in the behavior of criminals. How often is a person with a CCL actually
going to have a confrontation with a criminal? How many armed citizens have
the chance of coming in contact with a "scumbag? Aren't normal citizens
usually not where low life people hang out? Then you have the problem of
people with gun permits who have no business having them. Even though I live
in California I have seen the people in my county who are getting permits
and it's scary. Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves. Bottom line; you don't have
enough people with permits to make any difference to the crime rate, and the
people with permits are too lame to do much good anyway, so Goober's
argument is kaput.


Hawke

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:16:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves.

Good grief, Hawke!

At the range I go to, I see definite correllation between gray hair
and good shooting. Jam-clearing doesn't seem to be an issue.

High-volume rapid fire comes less rather often from grayhairs than
from young bucks. Pensioners and cost of ammo, you know. The
difference is that when grayhairs do shoot that way, a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.

Don Foreman fired this volley in
news
a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.

Yeah... "tearing up Nine". G

Speakin' of which; Momma came to me the other day with a rain-check on a
new revolver (for me, this time, she got one a year ago).

Da' Judge! It'll be fun, even if it is a handful, and not good for
better than 3" at 25 yards.

LLoyd

Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

Don Foreman fired this volley in
news

a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.


Yeah... "tearing up Nine". G

Speakin' of which; Momma came to me the other day with a rain-check on a
new revolver (for me, this time, she got one a year ago).

Da' Judge! It'll be fun, even if it is a handful, and not good for
better than 3" at 25 yards.

LLoyd



Yabbut, if you have to cap someone, Lloyd, it probably won't be 25 yards
out. :-) I saw the ad for "The Judge" and that is one awesome handgun.
The only problem I see with it is deciding what to put in it.

Jim

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:39:00 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:21:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Well I have a simple solution. Good guys kill bad guys or just pose a
credible threat so bad guys start thinking crime doesn't pay. As it
is,
the
worst areas have unarmed citizens in them.

'Sounds like you believe that they think like you do. But they're
criminals
and you're not, so, by definition, they don't.

Most use of guns in crimes is criminals brandishing, threatening, or
shooting other criminals -- convicted felons, in most cases. The number
of
gun-related crimes committed against lawful citizens actually is a very
small percentage of crimes committed with guns, Wes. Since criminals may
be
carrying illegally as it is (the ones committing the crimes with guns
certainly are), it doesn't appear that the "credible threats" have much
effect.

Right! Most homicides seem to be gangsta's killing gangsta's though
there are sometimes collateral casualties.

I'd prefer "deterrent" to "credible threat". Predators look for easy
prey. See prolific writings by Massad Ayoob if you want cites.
Becoming a gunsel reduces one to the level of the criminal scumbags.
Killing must be a last resort for responsible citizens. It is not a
solution in general and is quite rarely a necessity in particular.
That said, peaceful citizens able to defend themselves are less easy
prey and we must retain the right to not be easy prey.


One should not forget the "halo" effect either of an area with many
legally armed citizens.

The bad guys are unable to determine who is carrying, so tend to find
other crimes to commit that dont involve direct contact with their
victims.

some years ago, Detroit had a very large and growing rape rate.
The chief of police at that time, offered free firearms training and
safety classes to women, and many hundreds took advantage to take
them.
The newspapers and media carried the story in depth about how many
women were now trained in use of firearms, and they were buying guns
to keep at home.

The rate of rapes in homes dropped like an anvil down the well.

The rape rate outside the home rose nearly an equal amount.

See..Michigan didnt have much of a CCW process and it was nearly
impossible for a woman to get one.

This is the same reason armed robberies dropped like a stone in
Florida after they started their CCW issuing. However it DID go up a
significantly large amount amoung tourists driving rental cars.
Criminals realized that those people would be unlikely to be armed.

It got so bad that they removed the car rental decals from rental
cars, to make it harder for the criminals to profile a helpless victim

I got a ticket down in San Diego, a rental car. No registration anymore,
cause its was easier to drive the rental into mexico, re-register
everything, as its on the registration....

$353 for speeding, I made up for it in
northern california... get my speeding fix!!

Thats what the cop said anyway...

xman

Then armed robberies again dropped like a rock.

If you are a criminal, and you know your area has many many
outstanding CCW weapons carriers..are you willig to tae the chance
youcan pick them out in a crowd of potential victims?

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean
end.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:16:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men
and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves.

Good grief, Hawke!

At the range I go to, I see definite correllation between gray hair
and good shooting. Jam-clearing doesn't seem to be an issue.

High-volume rapid fire comes less rather often from grayhairs than
from young bucks. Pensioners and cost of ammo, you know. The
difference is that when grayhairs do shoot that way, a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.


I guess there are gray hairs and then there are gray hairs. Because at the
club where I shoot they have a concealed carry class every other Friday and
what I have seen would make your hair stand on end, gray or not. It seems
like most of the people applying for permits are not just gray of hair but
actually elderly. I guess they are scared in their old age that some young
whippersnapper will try to rip them off because they really want to get
firearms permits. Not only can they not clear a jam but they can't shoot
worth crap either. I would like to see what the average age of the people
applying for the permits is in this county because not many of the people I
have seen are young. But then maybe it's county specific. Here in Calif.,
where it's supposedly impossible to get a handgun permit, it's rather easy
to get one in my county. They make it really easy. But then my county is
small, less than 250,000 people, and basically rural. It may be different in
other counties but the people here are old and not very competent. The good
news is that we can get permits though, which is not something I can't say
for the rest of the state. In the south, where I used to live, you couldn't
and still can't get a gun permit no matter what. Where I live now you don't
really need one but can have one and where I used to live you needed one but
couldn't get one. But then it's pretty screwy in California.

Hawke

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:14:48 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:16:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men
and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves.

Good grief, Hawke!

At the range I go to, I see definite correllation between gray hair
and good shooting. Jam-clearing doesn't seem to be an issue.

High-volume rapid fire comes less rather often from grayhairs than
from young bucks. Pensioners and cost of ammo, you know. The
difference is that when grayhairs do shoot that way, a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.


I guess there are gray hairs and then there are gray hairs. Because at the
club where I shoot they have a concealed carry class every other Friday and
what I have seen would make your hair stand on end, gray or not. It seems
like most of the people applying for permits are not just gray of hair but
actually elderly. I guess they are scared in their old age that some young
whippersnapper will try to rip them off because they really want to get
firearms permits. Not only can they not clear a jam but they can't shoot
worth crap either.

Scared or simply prudent and paying attention? It's easy for fools to
be fearless. Elders are viewed as easy prey, good for those who don't
care to fit the stereotype.

You could help by offering your expertise to help them learn to shoot
better, and discover what will work for them. Scorn and contempt is
appropos for predators. Screw 'em, they've lived too long already?

The elders I've seen where I shoot won't be entering any track meets,
but they sure do their best. One old couple was there for at least
two hours while I was breaking in a rifle. Gramps was infinitely
patient while Nana gradually got the hang of things. I don't know
what she was shooting but it sounded like a 9mmp, .380 or possibly .38
spl. If the latter, she wouldn't have to clear jams. By the time I
packed up to leave, her shooting wasn't bad at all. Wouldn't win any
matches but her silhouette target was getting punched in the right
places.

Elder women, and eventually elder men, may well have some difficulty
racking a slide. A revolver may then be a better choice for them.

Guess who introduced a very nice gramma to a rather nice .357
revolver today? G She loves it, and she shoots it quite
respectably. We used "powderpuff" loads because she doesn't care for
the thunder, lightning and smoke of a full .357 load though she can
definitely shoot 'em if the situation requires. A couple of cylinders
of full mags is plenty for me per session too. They shoot at least
as accurately as the poppers but the poppers are more pleasant.

We burned a bunch of poppers today, gettin' accquainted with the new
revolver. She can rack the slide on a SIG 9mm but she much prefers
the revolver.

Powderpuff load: 5.5 gn of W231 behind a 125 gn Cu-plated RN (Berry
or XTreme) in a .357 case, COL 1.540. Credit to Fitch for developing
this recipe. 5.0 gns of powder works, but he discovered that 5.5 gns
affords a surprising improvement in accuracy with a 4" barrel. We
don't like using .38 spl ammo in a .357 because it makes pesky
carbon rings in the cylinder holes.

Is trading recipes a senior activity, or what? G

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:49:12 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:16:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves.

Good grief, Hawke!

At the range I go to, I see definite correllation between gray hair
and good shooting. Jam-clearing doesn't seem to be an issue.

High-volume rapid fire comes less rather often from grayhairs than
from young bucks. Pensioners and cost of ammo, you know. The
difference is that when grayhairs do shoot that way, a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.

Indeed.

Battle Rattle is of little use in real life on a single target.
Afterall...how many times do you really need to kill an opponent?

If lots of rounds downrange gives ya a woodie, put out multiple
targets and address them all.

Gunner

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:23:02
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:49:12 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:16:18 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:

Instead of young, competent, fearless men, who know how to
use a gun and are willing to use one what you get are a bunch of old men and
women who can't even clear a jam by themselves.

Good grief, Hawke!

At the range I go to, I see definite correllation between gray hair
and good shooting. Jam-clearing doesn't seem to be an issue.

High-volume rapid fire comes less rather often from grayhairs than
from young bucks. Pensioners and cost of ammo, you know. The
difference is that when grayhairs do shoot that way, a gaping
shredded hole is often created where COM used to be on the target.

Indeed.

Battle Rattle is of little use in real life on a single target.
Afterall...how many times do you really need to kill an opponent?

If lots of rounds downrange gives ya a woodie, put out multiple
targets and address them all.

I am reminded of the young bull and the old bull. they are
walking together and they come over a hill, and spy a bunch of cows
down below. The young bull says "lets run down and screw us a
couple." The old bull says "Lets walk down, and screw 'em all."

Patience is a virtue.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries