"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

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...

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.

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.

"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.