On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:27*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

*Nukes are not covered by the Second Amendment..so you can relax.

Why not? David thinks they are.

Because they were not in use in any form or fashion in 1786.

All of our other weapons, even current high tech weapons can be traced
back to their roots well before that time.

And David may well be correct. I personally would give the Government
the Right to put various restrictions on WMD of that nature.
NBC..nuclear, biological, chemical weapons of mass distruction.


"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:42:01 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:27*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live. *And kids walking through the
neighborhood carrying rifles, on their way out to the desert to hunt and
plink.

I'm glad that makes you happy. I'm more glad that it doesn't happen in
my neighborhood.

You live in New Jersey. While it is a mental desert.......shrug


d) you'll have a hard time convincing me that carrying a gun is a
"human right" on any scale remotely related to
http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217.htm

So you believe that UN mandates are of greater value than the
Constituion and the Bill of Rights.


Read again, carefully this time. I said that I don't consider carrying
a firearm to be in the same class as the right, say, to not have your
children stolen by the government. Before you start in on how the
liberals are stealing your kids, think about what an ass you'll look
like when you try to compare what happens in southern California to
sex slave trade in the far east.

What does the sex slave trade in the far east have to do with the
Constitution?

Are you drunk, or simply demonstrating that mental deficiency you suffer
from?

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live.

The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

I don't know how you find data, Ed, but you're good at it! If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN? Also, what qualifies as violent crime? I'm not pulling your
chain here, I'd really like to know.

I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. I think they'd say the same. Funny how that works.

I don't carry a sidearm when I walk my miles each day on the many nice
trails available to me here, but I begin to wonder if that's prudent.
To wit:
http://www.startribune.com/local/eas...nDaycUiacyKUUr

I don't live near the locale of this story but it got my attention.
I'm a senior of 67 years, not as strong as I once was (!) A chop to
my ICD (implanted cardiac defibrillator)that is just under the skin
near my left collar bone could stop my clock as well as a bullet or
blade thru the cardioticker.

I have the training, kit, proven skills and permit to carry if I
should choose to do so. I have not chosen to do so thus far as a
matter of convenience: I have enough trouble keeping my pants up
without weight in the pockets or IWB holsters or whatever truck. I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live.

The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds
bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

I don't know how you find data, Ed, but you're good at it!

Thank you, thank you...it's the result of an ill-spent youth.

If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Also, what qualifies as violent crime?

Murder; manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; and aggravated assault.

I'm not pulling your
chain here, I'd really like to know.

Good. I hate to waste my time with chain-pullers. g

This is data derived from the state reports that are compiled for the FBI's
annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). It's fairly reliable overall, but the
state-to-state comparisons are NOT always reliable, because there are
variations in the quality of the states' reporting. Comparing the figures
for Gunner's town (Taft, CA) with my town (Metuchen, NJ), which have a ratio
of 4:1 for violent crime, it's well within the bounds of those variations.
Your town versus Gunner's town, with a 4:3 ratio, is more problematic.

I used to dig out this data myself, but I've gotten lazy and I now use the
compiled figures from several Internet sources. If you want one that appears
to be reliable (and the one I'm using here), take a look at this:

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mn/fridley.htm

I've compared it with UCR figures for a couple of locations and it seems
good, although it's a couple of years behind. You can use "Idcide" for
different towns just by plugging in different states and town names to the
URL. There are some real estate comparison sites that have the same data.
They probably all buy it from some data source that compiles it from the
fine-grained UCR data, which is not available online to that degree of
fineness -- to the best of my knowledge. I still look at the printed ones at
my county library when I need fine data.


I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. I think they'd say the same. Funny how that works.

OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.


I don't carry a sidearm when I walk my miles each day on the many nice
trails available to me here, but I begin to wonder if that's prudent.
To wit:
http://www.startribune.com/local/eas...nDaycUiacyKUUr

There's always the chance. Your town does have quite a high violent-crime
rate, and that might influence me, as well. But the one-in-a-million, like
that case you cite, could happen anywhere. Nutcases (which this guy sounds
like) can be anywhere.


I don't live near the locale of this story but it got my attention.
I'm a senior of 67 years, not as strong as I once was (!) A chop to
my ICD (implanted cardiac defibrillator)that is just under the skin
near my left collar bone could stop my clock as well as a bullet or
blade thru the cardioticker.

I think about those things, too. There have been a few times that I wished I
could slip my Colt Pocket Positive into a jacket pocket. Maybe once or twice
a year. But not while I'm mowing my front lawn. It's more like when I'm
camping or hiking down the D&R Canal towpath, past New Brunswick and some
other unsavory places.


I have the training, kit, proven skills and permit to carry if I
should choose to do so. I have not chosen to do so thus far as a
matter of convenience: I have enough trouble keeping my pants up
without weight in the pockets or IWB holsters or whatever truck. I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:19:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

I don't know how you find data, Ed, but you're good at it! If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN? Also, what qualifies as violent crime? I'm not pulling your
chain here, I'd really like to know.


What Ed doesnt mention....though his misrepresentation is obvious....

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/ca/taft.htm

Taft, CA Profile

Taft, CA, population 9,106, is located in California's Kern county,
about 29.4 miles from Bakersfield and 60.5 miles from Ventura.

Through the 90's Taft's population has grown by about 8%. It is
estimated that in the first 5 years of this decade the population of
Taft has grown by about 42%.

Taft's property crime levels tend to be about the same as California's
average level. The same data shows violent crime levels in Taft tend to
be lower than California's average level.




Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forcible Rape 6 7 1 0 2 2
Robbery 9 4 0 1 6 4
Aggravated Assault 29 26 25 28 26 27

It should be noted that "Taft" is the core community, surrounded by Ford
City, Taft Heights, South Taft and has a population of approximately
19,000
Crime figures are taken from the Taft Courthouse as well as Kern County
records and the crimes above reflect a total from the incorporated AND
un incorporated areas comprising "Taft".

Which just shows how a Leftist can slant facts and produce a lie.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:19:35 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds
bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my
town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four
times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

I don't know how you find data, Ed, but you're good at it! If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN? Also, what qualifies as violent crime? I'm not pulling your
chain here, I'd really like to know.


What Ed doesnt mention....though his misrepresentation is obvious....

http://www.idcide.com/citydata/ca/taft.htm

Taft, CA Profile

Taft, CA, population 9,106, is located in California's Kern county,
about 29.4 miles from Bakersfield and 60.5 miles from Ventura.

Through the 90's Taft's population has grown by about 8%. It is
estimated that in the first 5 years of this decade the population of
Taft has grown by about 42%.

Taft's property crime levels tend to be about the same as California's
average level. The same data shows violent crime levels in Taft tend to
be lower than California's average level.




Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forcible Rape 6 7 1 0 2 2
Robbery 9 4 0 1 6 4
Aggravated Assault 29 26 25 28 26 27

It should be noted that "Taft" is the core community, surrounded by Ford
City, Taft Heights, South Taft and has a population of approximately
19,000
Crime figures are taken from the Taft Courthouse as well as Kern County
records and the crimes above reflect a total from the incorporated AND
un incorporated areas comprising "Taft".

Which just shows how a Leftist can slant facts and produce a lie.

Gunner

?? I don't know what your point is, Gunner, but your data indicate that Taft
is a crime pesthole, any way you slice it. Your community as a whole has a
population around 19,000. The population of mine is 14,000. So what are you
implying?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .

I have the training, kit, proven skills and permit to carry if I
should choose to do so. I have not chosen to do so thus far as a
matter of convenience: I have enough trouble keeping my pants up
without weight in the pockets or IWB holsters or whatever truck. I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

Don n Ed,

My pants got kinda pully-down from carrying a Kel-Tec P11, so I
invested in a SmartCarry. http://www.smartcarry.com/ Now instead of
the KelTec I can carry an older S&W Sigma 9mm 16 shot (larger than the
new Sigmas, easier to shoot than the KT). And my pants stay up!

Either the KelTec or the Sigma is with me most of the time. Mowing,
working in the shop, at work, wherever. I expect never to have
serious need of either one.

Best -- Terry

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0500, Terry wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..

I have the training, kit, proven skills and permit to carry if I
should choose to do so. I have not chosen to do so thus far as a
matter of convenience: I have enough trouble keeping my pants up
without weight in the pockets or IWB holsters or whatever truck. I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

Don n Ed,

My pants got kinda pully-down from carrying a Kel-Tec P11, so I
invested in a SmartCarry. http://www.smartcarry.com/ Now instead of
the KelTec I can carry an older S&W Sigma 9mm 16 shot (larger than the
new Sigmas, easier to shoot than the KT). And my pants stay up!

Either the KelTec or the Sigma is with me most of the time. Mowing,
working in the shop, at work, wherever. I expect never to have
serious need of either one.

Best -- Terry

Big question on comfort level...how is it when driving or sitting? Ive
tried several of this sort of holster and they were hidiously
uncomfortable when doing anything besides walking or standing.

Is this one any better when sitting or driving? And can the weapon be
easily accessed while sitting or driving?

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.

I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. I think they'd say the same. Funny how that works.

OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.

Hm. That is indeed a cultural difference. I do know one guy (in a
different state) who carries (concealed) while mowing -- and about
any time he's awake including at home. He is a very bright man,
definitely not nuts, a very personable guy and a good friend.

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

I know exactly what you mean about stuff and pants. I guess maybe I
will start carrying a cellphone and a lightweight pocket .380 on my
hikes. I don't usually carry either but I guess it can't hurt. 446
per 100K per year is a considerably larger number than I would have
expected here, and certainly far more than one in a million nutcase
events.

On Jul 20, 3:13*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. *Perhaps I feel safer than I should. *No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley. *

What those numbers don't show is hoe many of those violent crimes were
committed by family members or "friends." I expect that the number is
significant.


I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. *If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. *I think they'd say the same. *Funny how that works.

OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.

Hm. *That is indeed a cultural difference. *I do know one guy (in a
different state) *who carries (concealed) while mowing -- and about
any time he's awake including at home. * *He is a very bright man,
definitely not nuts, a very personable guy and a good friend.

I guess so. It simply isn't done around here. I've never given a
thought to whether it's legal or not, it's just something we NEVER
see. Even my backyard neighbor, who's a cop, doesn't carry a gun when
he's mowing his lawn (or if he does, it's incredibly small and well
concealed under shorts and a t-shirt).

I'd also add that if you live in a place where you feel the need to be
armed while in your own yard, maybe you need to think about living
somewhere else.


Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

I know exactly what you mean about stuff and pants. *I guess maybe I
will start carrying a cellphone and a lightweight pocket .380 on my
hikes. *I don't usually carry either but I guess it can't hurt. *446
per 100K per year *is a considerably *larger number than I would have
expected here, and certainly far more than one in a million nutcase
events. *

Again, I'd be interested to know (and I expect you could get the info
from your local police department), how many of those 446 were crimes
against strangers. I'd bet the number is not very high.

And once again, the social acceptance of women carrying everything in
a bag, while the same for a man would make him a "fag," just plain
sucks. Of course, Don, if you're hiking, you could carry everything in
a small day pack.

And, an easy way around the overloaded belt problem is to wear
suspenders.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:13 pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?
2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.
Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.

What those numbers don't show is hoe many of those violent crimes were
committed by family members or "friends." I expect that the number is
significant.

I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. I think they'd say the same. Funny how that works.
OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.
Hm. That is indeed a cultural difference. I do know one guy (in a
different state) who carries (concealed) while mowing -- and about
any time he's awake including at home. He is a very bright man,
definitely not nuts, a very personable guy and a good friend.

I guess so. It simply isn't done around here. I've never given a
thought to whether it's legal or not, it's just something we NEVER
see. Even my backyard neighbor, who's a cop, doesn't carry a gun when
he's mowing his lawn (or if he does, it's incredibly small and well
concealed under shorts and a t-shirt).

I'd also add that if you live in a place where you feel the need to be
armed while in your own yard, maybe you need to think about living
somewhere else.

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)
I know exactly what you mean about stuff and pants. I guess maybe I
will start carrying a cellphone and a lightweight pocket .380 on my
hikes. I don't usually carry either but I guess it can't hurt. 446
per 100K per year is a considerably larger number than I would have
expected here, and certainly far more than one in a million nutcase
events.

I live in a very low crime area, older homes on an acre or more. No
through traffic. People walking down the street are noticed.

But I admit to carrying a small pistol most of the time around the house
and especially while outside. Fact is, there exists random violence and
people who will ruin your day without any remorse. there are also a trio
of pit bulls in the next yard, and they are known to get out and attack
(so far) livestock. I realize the odds are very much against me ever or
my wife being attacked on our property, but why not be prepared, when it
takes so little effort?

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:48:31 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:21 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

Oh give it a rest. Not everyone interprets the second amendment the
same way you do. Are you part of a "well regulated militia?"

Yes..the same as you are. Unless you are a government worker of a
certain type.

Same as every able-bodied adult citizen.

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:13:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.


Now the question remains...do you have 100k people living in Findley?

If you have 10k..its 44.6 crimes


Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:19:35 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:02:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

c) none of this would make me any happier about seeing my neighbor
mowing his lawn while carrying a .45, but that's not happening any
time soon in NJ.

Happens all the time where I live.

The idea of people mowing their lawns while packing pistols sounds bizarre,
but there is some basis for it in Gunner's case. Crime data (2006) for
Gunner's town shows 359 violent crimes/100k people, per year. For my town,
20 miles from Newark, NJ, the rate is 89/100k people. If we had four times
as much violent crime, I might expect to see some pressure for lawnmower
rifle scabbards. g

Well, if the new, lightweight Coast Guard can do it...
(crap, now I can't find the pic online: 6' dinghy with
pedestal-mounted .50 aboard)


I don't know how you find data, Ed, but you're good at it! If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN? Also, what qualifies as violent crime? I'm not pulling your
chain here, I'd really like to know.

I don't pack a pistol while mowing and my neighbors don't either as
far as I know. If they did, it wouldn't worry me. I have good
neighbors. I think they'd say the same. Funny how that works.

I don't carry a sidearm when I walk my miles each day on the many nice
trails available to me here, but I begin to wonder if that's prudent.
To wit:
http://www.startribune.com/local/eas...nDaycUiacyKUUr

I don't live near the locale of this story but it got my attention.
I'm a senior of 67 years, not as strong as I once was (!) A chop to
my ICD (implanted cardiac defibrillator)that is just under the skin
near my left collar bone could stop my clock as well as a bullet or
blade thru the cardioticker.

We all go sometime, Don.


I have the training, kit, proven skills and permit to carry if I
should choose to do so. I have not chosen to do so thus far as a
matter of convenience: I have enough trouble keeping my pants up
without weight in the pockets or IWB holsters or whatever truck. I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

Seen Clint lately? Age gets every one of us.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/m...dina_bauer.jpg


The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

I'd start carrying. Uncle Mike's shoulder holster under your tee,
perhaps? You -do- have a lightweight plastic carry weapon, don't you?
Viva KelTec! (Lightweight, light 12oz+1-inch trigger pull)

--
Mistrust the man who finds everything good, the man who finds everything
evil, and still more the man who is indifferent to everything.
-- Johann K. Lavater

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:05:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:13:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.


Now the question remains...do you have 100k people living in Findley?

If you have 10k..its 44.6 crimes


Gunner

That's just a convenient way to normalize data so it can be compared
to other locales. Fridley has pop of about 25,868. The actual stats
are on the web page Ed cited, just like they were for Taft in your
case.

The surprise to me is that I've seen no mention of violent crimes in
Fridley in the Mnpls paper I read every day. North Mnpls,Brooklyn
Center and St. Paul yeah, but nothing about Friendly Fridley. A car
was broken into in the 6800 block of Hohum drive, some DVDs were
stolen. Etc.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:05:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:13:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.


Now the question remains...do you have 100k people living in Findley?

If you have 10k..its 44.6 crimes


Gunner

That's just a convenient way to normalize data so it can be compared
to other locales. Fridley has pop of about 25,868. The actual stats
are on the web page Ed cited, just like they were for Taft in your
case.

The surprise to me is that I've seen no mention of violent crimes in
Fridley in the Mnpls paper I read every day. North Mnpls,Brooklyn
Center and St. Paul yeah, but nothing about Friendly Fridley. A car
was broken into in the 6800 block of Hohum drive, some DVDs were
stolen. Etc.

If it interests you, it would be worth checking with the Fridley police to
see what's going on. I've called local police departments and asked for the
officer who reports statistics to the state. Sometimes you find that the
local papers are under pressure from business advertisers not to publicize
all of the crime. Other times you find mistakes in the statistics; that
there isn't really as much crime as they report. I found cases of each when
I was writing editorials opposing NJ's semiauto ban, in the early '90s.

It averages out on larger scales. But, as I mentioned, there is enough
variation in the way departments report the data that it's not reliable to
compare the data from different jurisdictions when the crime rates are close
to each other. The FBI says the same thing on the home page of their UCR
data. When there are really large spreads, it's much more reliable.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:02:47 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:05:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:13:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.


Now the question remains...do you have 100k people living in Findley?

If you have 10k..its 44.6 crimes


Gunner

That's just a convenient way to normalize data so it can be compared
to other locales. Fridley has pop of about 25,868. The actual stats
are on the web page Ed cited, just like they were for Taft in your
case.

The surprise to me is that I've seen no mention of violent crimes in
Fridley in the Mnpls paper I read every day. North Mnpls,Brooklyn
Center and St. Paul yeah, but nothing about Friendly Fridley. A car
was broken into in the 6800 block of Hohum drive, some DVDs were
stolen. Etc.


Its like the actual stats on Taft...the numbers are much smaller than
the stats make them appear. Tafts "violent crime rate" is generally a
drunken spouse bashing the other drunken spouse. Very little crime in
general at all.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:39:36 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



We all go sometime, Don.

That's a fact! I've circled the drain a couple of times so I don't
worry much about mortality. But life is still pretty good and I'm not
ready to surrender it to some scumbag.


I am
not obese (I'd be dead if I was) but I'm not quite Clint Eastwood slim
either. Not yet anyway.

Seen Clint lately? Age gets every one of us.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/m...dina_bauer.jpg

Oh my! That's a bit different than how he looked in "Gran Torino".


The question is moot in NJ but what would you do in my sit?

I'd start carrying. Uncle Mike's shoulder holster under your tee,
perhaps? You -do- have a lightweight plastic carry weapon, don't you?
Viva KelTec! (Lightweight, light 12oz+1-inch trigger pull)

I don't yet, but I probably will have next week. I've resisted that
for nearly two years but finally asked the guy at the local shop near
my cabin if he'd care to make me a deal on a Ruger LCP. Yeah, he
could do that if I wasn't in a hurry because they're on allocation and
he'd had them on order since last November. I said I wasn't in any
hurry, but I'd like the price that I'd get if the travelling semi with
Ruger and Springfield products were to park in his lot for a day like
they did last summer ... and then I shut up.

After a while, he told me what he thought he could do. We both knew
damned well what he could do if he wanted to but there's a protocol to
observe in such matters doncha know. His price was within pocket
change of the number I'd had in mind. I said OK, that'd work for me.
He wrote my name in his book. I asked him if he'd like a few bux
down. Well, he wouldn't need that but if I might want to do that it'd
put me at the head of the queue. Hm. He had several names but no
money down behind them so they could well flake on him. Sayin' is one
thing, doin' is another. It's a small shop. I handed him a fifty.

Last week I stopped in just because I was driving by. His son greeted
me by name which kinda surprised me. I asked if there might be any
news. He grinned, said wull yeah there was. Full stop. I waited
quietly for him to continue. Turns out the distributor said he could
send one if they wanted it and he'd said they did (money down
obviously didn't hurt a bit) so it should be there shortly if it
hasn't already arrived. I'll drive by there in the next day or two.
The LCP is very similar to the KelTec 3AT but slightly heavier and it
looks better-crafted to me. I think it has more like 1/2" trigger
pull. I frankly don't like it much at all but it does have the
singular attribute of being a very easy pocket pistol to have along
about any time. It isn't much of a gun and I expect it'll be no fun
at all to shoot, but if ever needed it'd be far more effective than
more capable arms that are home in the safe.

Like you said, we all go sometime, no point in worrying about it --
but if my demise is at the hands of a scumbag who'd take my life for a
farthing then I hope the last sounds I hear are the pops of my petit
pistol that's dispatching that SOB to hell right behind me.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:15:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:05:17 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:13:10 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:23:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



If you
please, what is the violent crime data for same period for Fridley,
MN?

2005 -- 446 violent crimes/100k people.

Wow! That surprises me. Perhaps I feel safer than I should. No
sarcasm here, I really am surprised at that number for Fridley.


Now the question remains...do you have 100k people living in Findley?

If you have 10k..its 44.6 crimes


Gunner

That's just a convenient way to normalize data so it can be compared
to other locales. Fridley has pop of about 25,868. The actual stats
are on the web page Ed cited, just like they were for Taft in your
case.

The surprise to me is that I've seen no mention of violent crimes in
Fridley in the Mnpls paper I read every day. North Mnpls,Brooklyn
Center and St. Paul yeah, but nothing about Friendly Fridley. A car
was broken into in the 6800 block of Hohum drive, some DVDs were
stolen. Etc.

If it interests you, it would be worth checking with the Fridley police to
see what's going on.

I will be doing exactly that. I don't have much use for cops as a
generality because I've found so many of them to be power-crazed
arrogant assholes -- but I have great respect for the Fridley PD.

I was surprised to learn not long ago that their squad rifles are not
..223 but .243. An excellent choice in my humble opinion. A Fridley
cop stopped by to investigate a minor complaint I'd made about
itinerant peddlers, stayed and BS'd with me for over an hour in my
garage/shop/sanctorum. He's a woodworker, that's what he wants to do
when he retires.

I've had other encounters with the Fridley cops. 911 call for a
suspicious stranger wandering thru back yards at dusk. I and my good
neighbors have rather deep back yards. They were there in less than
2 minutes. Their tactics were flat perfect to my somewhat experienced
eye. Quiet pincers, drive to collect (rather than kill), very
effective. They efficiently collected the trespasser and quietly
hauled him away.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:59:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Its like the actual stats on Taft...the numbers are much smaller than
the stats make them appear. Tafts "violent crime rate" is generally a
drunken spouse bashing the other drunken spouse. Very little crime in
general at all.

Gunner

Good data for when/if I might do my daily miles in or around Taft. I'm
still thinkin' it might not be a bad idea to pack a pocket popper
whilst on my hikes here.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:16:49 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0500, Terry wrote:

Don n Ed,

My pants got kinda pully-down from carrying a Kel-Tec P11, so I
invested in a SmartCarry. http://www.smartcarry.com/ Now instead of
the KelTec I can carry an older S&W Sigma 9mm 16 shot (larger than the
new Sigmas, easier to shoot than the KT). And my pants stay up!

Either the KelTec or the Sigma is with me most of the time. Mowing,
working in the shop, at work, wherever. I expect never to have
serious need of either one.

Best -- Terry

Big question on comfort level...how is it when driving or sitting? Ive
tried several of this sort of holster and they were hidiously
uncomfortable when doing anything besides walking or standing.

Is this one any better when sitting or driving? And can the weapon be
easily accessed while sitting or driving?

Well... some say they don't notice that they have it on. When I'm
sitting, I know it's there but I wouldn't call it hideously
uncomfortable. I find the discomfort of having my pants dragged down
by the weight of a paddle or other holster to be greater. Personal
preference, I guess.

*Any* holster that requires one to reach inside the pants is going to
be harder to access when sitting. But it can be done; takes practice.

When I used a paddle or pocket holster I used to skip carrying
occasionally. By contrast, the SmartCarry is almost always with me.

Best -- Terry

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:50:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:59:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Its like the actual stats on Taft...the numbers are much smaller than
the stats make them appear. Tafts "violent crime rate" is generally a
drunken spouse bashing the other drunken spouse. Very little crime in
general at all.

Gunner

Good data for when/if I might do my daily miles in or around Taft. I'm
still thinkin' it might not be a bad idea to pack a pocket popper
whilst on my hikes here.


Oh..I carry all the time. As do most of my friends. The CCWs in this
county are larger in number than law enforcement in total.

And we sorta like it that way. Hence the very small crime issues.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:15:03 -0500, Terry wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:16:49 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:10:32 -0500, Terry wrote:

Don n Ed,

My pants got kinda pully-down from carrying a Kel-Tec P11, so I
invested in a SmartCarry. http://www.smartcarry.com/ Now instead of
the KelTec I can carry an older S&W Sigma 9mm 16 shot (larger than the
new Sigmas, easier to shoot than the KT). And my pants stay up!

Either the KelTec or the Sigma is with me most of the time. Mowing,
working in the shop, at work, wherever. I expect never to have
serious need of either one.

Best -- Terry

Big question on comfort level...how is it when driving or sitting? Ive
tried several of this sort of holster and they were hidiously
uncomfortable when doing anything besides walking or standing.

Is this one any better when sitting or driving? And can the weapon be
easily accessed while sitting or driving?

Well... some say they don't notice that they have it on. When I'm
sitting, I know it's there but I wouldn't call it hideously
uncomfortable. I find the discomfort of having my pants dragged down
by the weight of a paddle or other holster to be greater. Personal
preference, I guess.

*Any* holster that requires one to reach inside the pants is going to
be harder to access when sitting. But it can be done; takes practice.

When I used a paddle or pocket holster I used to skip carrying
occasionally. By contrast, the SmartCarry is almost always with me.

Best -- Terry


Thanks for the heads up. Ill probably order one.

Ive carried ankle for many years daily, and in other places for nearly
as long. But sometimes its not easy to tuck away out of sight.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:50:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:59:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Its like the actual stats on Taft...the numbers are much smaller than
the stats make them appear. Tafts "violent crime rate" is generally a
drunken spouse bashing the other drunken spouse. Very little crime in
general at all.

Gunner

Good data for when/if I might do my daily miles in or around Taft. I'm
still thinkin' it might not be a bad idea to pack a pocket popper
whilst on my hikes here.


Oh..I carry all the time. As do most of my friends. The CCWs in this
county are larger in number than law enforcement in total.

At 4,077 in 2006, Kern County had more than twice as many CCWs/person as any
other county in the state. But it's still just slightly more than 1% of the
county's population.


And we sorta like it that way. Hence the very small crime issues.

Gunner

No, your violent crime rates actually are pretty high. Even with a 83% white
population (with just over 15% Hispanic of any race), you have about average
figures for California.

Which is to say, they're high -- around 25% higher than the US as a whole.
For your county, there are more than 2-1//2 times as many violent crimes per
person as in my county, for example. (FBI UCR stats.) Looking at 2005, which
is handy, you had 28 murders in your county -- a rate that's four times
higher than for my county, which includes a few pretty rough towns.

But then, it's about what you'd expect. We have no CCWs. Contrary to John
Lott's Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies (and Mary Rosh g), high rates of
CCWs correspond to high rates of violent crime. It's a question of which is
cause and which is effect, but they go together like peaches and cream.

The bottom line is that, if you live in a town with a lot of CCWs, there
will be a high mortality rate to go with it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message

OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood
that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.

Hm. That is indeed a cultural difference. I do know one guy (in a
different state) who carries (concealed) while mowing -- and about
any time he's awake including at home. He is a very bright man,
definitely not nuts, a very personable guy and a good friend.

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while
on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

I know exactly what you mean about stuff and pants. I guess maybe I
will start carrying a cellphone and a lightweight pocket .380 on my
hikes. I don't usually carry either but I guess it can't hurt. 446
per 100K per year is a considerably larger number than I would have
expected here, and certainly far more than one in a million nutcase
events.


how about a can of pepper spray? lightweight, cheap, doesn't need a permit.
maybe a can of pepper spray would've helped the lady in the link you posted.
i know someone who bought 15 cans of pepper spray cheap off ebay and gave
them out to all the women he knows.
we recently got some rail trails here. it was only a matter of time before
some kook started stalking women along the trail.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc.../NEWS/90719014


b.w.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:30:45 -0500, "William Wixon"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message

OK, but I think what's struck rangerssuck and me is not the likelihood
that
those people are all nuts...it's the fact that you *wouldn't* think they
could be nuts. That reflects a serious cultural difference. g Here, we
can't do it legally, but if someone had a permit and did carry a pistol
while mowing the lawn, most of us probably would think he was nuts.

Hm. That is indeed a cultural difference. I do know one guy (in a
different state) who carries (concealed) while mowing -- and about
any time he's awake including at home. He is a very bright man,
definitely not nuts, a very personable guy and a good friend.

Until they catch this nutcase, at least, I'd carry something light while
on
your hikes, even if he isn't in your neighborhood. My pants have enough
trouble staying up as it is, with cell phone, pocket knife, keys, wallet,
insulin pump, and change, so the .45 and the Colt Officer's Model .38 Spl.
are out. d8-)

I know exactly what you mean about stuff and pants. I guess maybe I
will start carrying a cellphone and a lightweight pocket .380 on my
hikes. I don't usually carry either but I guess it can't hurt. 446
per 100K per year is a considerably larger number than I would have
expected here, and certainly far more than one in a million nutcase
events.


how about a can of pepper spray? lightweight, cheap, doesn't need a permit.
maybe a can of pepper spray would've helped the lady in the link you posted.
i know someone who bought 15 cans of pepper spray cheap off ebay and gave
them out to all the women he knows.
we recently got some rail trails here. it was only a matter of time before
some kook started stalking women along the trail.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbc.../NEWS/90719014


b.w.

As a former deputy...pepper spray, Mace etc etc doesnt always work on
every person. And the "spray back"..the chemical you get when you use
your irritant up close and personal may effect you worse than the
criminal.

Bullets have no spray back. And they always work, no matter how drugged
up the recipient is.

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jul 21, 11:26*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a former deputy...

Another of your fantasies?

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 21, 11:26*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a former deputy...

Another of your fantasies?


Dont you wish.

Snicker.

I didnt arrest you did it? I didnt have very many sex crime arrests,
however I did make a ****load of Dueces and H&S busts.

As ****ed up as you appear to be, long term...I may have busted you for
being under the influence of drugs. Ever get popped in Fresno County?



Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jul 21, 12:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:26*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a former deputy...

Another of your fantasies?

Dont you wish.

Snicker.

I didnt arrest you did it? *I didnt have very many sex crime arrests,
however I did make a ****load of Dueces and H&S busts.

As ****ed up as you appear to be, long term...I may have busted you for
being under the influence of drugs. Ever get popped in Fresno County?

Gunner

What the **** are you talking about?

Were you ever a deputy? Where and when? Be aware that this is public
information and can easily be checked out.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 21, 12:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:26*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

As a former deputy...

Another of your fantasies?

Dont you wish.

Snicker.

I didnt arrest you did it? *I didnt have very many sex crime arrests,
however I did make a ****load of Dueces and H&S busts.

As ****ed up as you appear to be, long term...I may have busted you for
being under the influence of drugs. Ever get popped in Fresno County?

Gunner

What the **** are you talking about?

Were you ever a deputy? Where and when? Be aware that this is public
information and can easily be checked out.

Yes indeed. 6 yrs actually.

And feel free to check it out.

Afterall...it is good to give the retarded easy jobs..so have at it.

G

Gunner

"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno

On Jul 21, 1:47*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Were you ever a deputy? Where and when? Be aware that this is public
information and can easily be checked out.

Yes indeed. *6 yrs actually.

Where and when?

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:18:18 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:27*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

*Nukes are not covered by the Second Amendment..so you can relax.

Why not? David thinks they are.

Because they were not in use in any form or fashion in 1786.

All of our other weapons, even current high tech weapons can be traced
back to their roots well before that time.

I tend to go back a bit further. Before all this high faluting
technology. Why when I was a boy, we hadn't invented rocks so we
couldn't even get stoned. Anyway, back in those days, you could punch
someone, scratch or bite, or once we discovered fire, throw 'em in the
fire place. So those were the three types of wounds: bruises, cuts,
and burns. Once rocks were invented,we realized that you could
"punch" some one with a rock from beyond arms reach, and then the
sling, and ... eventually the M-4 carbine and the like.
Knives were just "teeth" at a distance, and of course
flamethrowers are just a means of bringing the fire to them, rather
than having to bring them to the fire.
So, in a sense, nukes are just big fire weapons, although they do
cause enough stuff to get blown around to qualify on the other two
counts.




And David may well be correct. I personally would give the Government
the Right to put various restrictions on WMD of that nature.
NBC..nuclear, biological, chemical weapons of mass distruction.

If the effects are going to be more than the immediate area, and
last longer than the detonation ... "is weapon of mass destruction,
comrade."

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 21, 1:47 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Were you ever a deputy? Where and when? Be aware that this is public
information and can easily be checked out.

Yes indeed. 6 yrs actually.

Where and when?

Neverland.
He was the official screener for Michaels "toys".

--
John R. Carroll

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:18:18 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:27 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

Nukes are not covered by the Second Amendment..so you can relax.
Why not? David thinks they are.
Because they were not in use in any form or fashion in 1786.

All of our other weapons, even current high tech weapons can be traced
back to their roots well before that time.

I tend to go back a bit further. Before all this high faluting
technology. Why when I was a boy, we hadn't invented rocks so we
couldn't even get stoned. Anyway, back in those days, you could punch
someone, scratch or bite, or once we discovered fire, throw 'em in the
fire place. So those were the three types of wounds: bruises, cuts,
and burns. Once rocks were invented,we realized that you could
"punch" some one with a rock from beyond arms reach, and then the
sling, and ... eventually the M-4 carbine and the like.
Knives were just "teeth" at a distance, and of course
flamethrowers are just a means of bringing the fire to them, rather
than having to bring them to the fire.
So, in a sense, nukes are just big fire weapons, although they do
cause enough stuff to get blown around to qualify on the other two
counts.

That was very helpful, Pyotr
Thanks for 'splainin' alla that.

On Jul 21, 3:11*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But then, it's about what you'd expect. We have no CCWs. Contrary to John
Lott's Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies (and Mary Rosh g), high rates of
CCWs correspond to high rates of violent crime. It's a question of which is
cause and which is effect, but they go together like peaches and cream.

The bottom line is that, if you live in a town with a lot of CCWs, there
will be a high mortality rate to go with it.

--
Ed Huntress

That must explain why Washington, DC has a 2005 violent crime rate of
1402, and Bismark ND has a rate of 90. Not sure what the number of
CCW's in Bismark, but as I understand it Washington, DC had none in
2005.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 3:11 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

But then, it's about what you'd expect. We have no CCWs. Contrary to John
Lott's Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies (and Mary Rosh g), high rates of
CCWs correspond to high rates of violent crime. It's a question of which
is
cause and which is effect, but they go together like peaches and cream.

The bottom line is that, if you live in a town with a lot of CCWs, there
will be a high mortality rate to go with it.

--
Ed Huntress

That must explain why Washington, DC has a 2005 violent crime rate of
1402, and Bismark ND has a rate of 90. Not sure what the number of
CCW's in Bismark, but as I understand it Washington, DC had none in
2005.

Dan

No, that has nothing to do with it. But if you did an honest regression
analysis, and didn't cherry-pick extreme examples like the NRA is wont to
do, you'll find that what I said is exactly on the mark. The
county-by-county correlation coefficient is something over 0.7.

That's what drove Lott to do his _More Guns, Less Crime_ thing. He knew the
figures, and he's a very good econometrics analyst. So he applied his
skills, and his ability to obscure what he was doing, to try to contradict
it (although he was dealing more with the delta -- the change effects --
than with the static correlation). According to most economic specialists in
the field, he didn't accomplish what he set out to do. You can confuse and
confound it all you want, but you can't get around the fact that the
correlation between violent crime rates and CCW rates is extremely high.

Now, the dimmer bulbs who get involved with this issue will assume that I'm
trying to imply some kind of causation. I'm not, as I made clear above.
There certainly is an effect that people who live in high crime areas
(Dallas being the extreme example; Miami was the example a decade or two
ago) will jump at getting a CCW when the law makes it possible, because they
already have a high crime rate. In that case, higher rates of concealed
carry tend to reflect an already existing crime problem. However, keep in
mind that there is no state in the US in which more than 2% or perhaps
2-1/2% of the adult population obtains a CCW permit. Mostly, it matures at
around 1% - 1-1/2%.

But there is some interaction, as well. It's a very hard thing to measure.
To some extent, it's cultural. I've lived in places where there are a LOT of
guns (western Maryland; northeast Pennsylvania), but the gun culture is all
about hunting and target shooting. In PA, handguns were not very common but
everyone, and I mean everyone, had a shotgun and probably a rifle. That was
around 1959 - 1963. When I was a freshman in high school, the kids over 14
carried their deer rifles to school and checked them in, along with the
ammo, at the phys-ed department before school started. We hunted while
walking home after school. No kidding. And the opening day of deer season
was a school holiday. But violent crime rates there were very low.

Other places, perhaps like the area Gunner lives in, are about handguns and
the culture is more about shooting people, rather than game. Even the target
shooting is practice for people-shooting. That's when you see the expertise
on concealed-carry holsters, and stopping power, and terminal ballistics of
handgun cartridges become an issue. You see people carrying handguns while
they mow their lawn. g You also will tend to find higher-than-average
violent crime rates in those places. Which is driving the other -- gun
culture versus pre-existing crime -- is something that we really have few
metrics by which to judge.

You know you're dealing with people-shooting gun culture when you see
someone like Gunner say that his friends all carry. But in Kern County, CA,
the percentage of the population with CCW permits, as of 2007, was 1.2%.
Obviously, the culture of people-shooting doesn't dominate the county. It's
a cultural thread of Gunner's and his associates' existence but not of his
surroundings. Still, the correlation between rates of CCW holders, which is
more than twice as high in Kern County as any other county in California,
and violent crime is very high. It's more than 2.5X the rate in my county,
which is more representative of places where there is virtually NO gun
culture left at all.

These things tend to be denied by the hard-core gun cultists, but they're
demonstrably true. They're not worth arguing about because a day or two of
real, honest examination of data takes the wind right out of the argument.
I've had to do it several times, especially when I was writing and lobbying
against some gun control measures here in NJ in the early '90s. At some
level of discussion, you have to deal with the reality rather than with the
silly anecdotes, like your comparison of Washington and Bismark. That level
of discussion is almost never reached in forums such as this one. But if you
get an audience with a legislator who is facing a bill concerning gun
control, you'd better not try "Washington vs. Bismark." They'll dismiss you
out of hand.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 22, 2:06*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


No, that has nothing to do with it. But if you did an honest regression
analysis, and didn't cherry-pick extreme examples like the NRA is wont to
do, you'll find that what I said is exactly on the mark. The
county-by-county correlation coefficient is something over 0.7.

Now, the dimmer bulbs who get involved with this issue will assume that I'm
trying to imply some kind of causation. I'm not, as I made clear above.
There certainly is an effect that people who live in high crime areas
(Dallas being the extreme example; Miami was the example a decade or two
ago) will jump at getting a CCW when the law makes it possible, because they
already have a high crime rate. In that case, higher rates of concealed
carry tend to reflect an already existing crime problem. However, keep in
mind that there is no state in the US in which more than 2% or perhaps
2-1/2% of the adult population obtains a CCW permit. Mostly, it matures at
around 1% - 1-1/2%.



Still, the correlation between rates of CCW holders, which is
more than twice as high in Kern County as any other county in California,
and violent crime is very high. It's more than 2.5X the rate in my county,
which is more representative of places where there is virtually NO gun
culture left at all.

These things tend to be denied by the hard-core gun cultists, but they're
demonstrably true. They're not worth arguing about because a day or two of
real, honest examination of data takes the wind right out of the argument..
I've had to do it several times, especially when I was writing and lobbying
against some gun control measures here in NJ in the early '90s. At some
level of discussion, you have to deal with the reality rather than with the
silly anecdotes, like your comparison of Washington and Bismark. That level
of discussion is almost never reached in forums such as this one. But if you
get an audience with a legislator who is facing a bill concerning gun
control, you'd better not try "Washington vs. Bismark." They'll dismiss you
out of hand.

--
Ed Huntress

I do believe that there is a correlation between CCW's and violent
crime, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the high crime rate
inspires more people to carry. Don Foreman is a RCM example. You can
not get a CCW if you are a violent criminal, and while some CCW
holders may end up committing violent crimes, the rate is probably the
same or lower than the general population in the same area. It is
pretty hard to argue that CCW holders are the ones raising the violent
crime rate.

The comparison of Washington DC to most anywhere is not silly. It
pretty much proves that although there is a correlation between CCW
holders and violent crime, CCW holders do not cause violent crime.
Washington DC has the highest violent crime rate and the worst public
schools. Bismark probably does not have a high rate of CCW holders,
but it probably has a higher per capita gun ownership than Washington,
DC.

You might want to look at the violent crime rate for Kennesaw GA. In
2005 the violent crime rate jumped to 121 from the 2004 rate of 91.
For the last 25 years heads of households have been required to own
guns and ammo. Oddly your site for violent crime rates does not
include Morton Grove, IL.

I do not understand your comments on the low percentage of CCW
holders. So the percentage is less than 2 or 3 percent. How does
this relate to anything? To me it just means that even in high crime
areas, most people either think that the effort to get a CCW , gun to
carry, and the time to practice to be proficient with a gun is not
worth while.

I have thought about getting a CCW, but not very seriously. Only once
in my life has there been a occasion where having a gun would have
been nice. And in that case it turned out to be not needed. Besides I
think a pistol is something you carry when you do not think you are
going to need a gun. Shotguns are a much better home defense weapon.
And you do not see soldiers carrying pistols into combat where one
expects to use a weapon.

There is a bill being considered in Congress that would allow a CCW
holder to carry in every state in which CCW's are issued. Kind of
makes sense to me. If you have a drivers license, you can drive in
every state.


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 2:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


No, that has nothing to do with it. But if you did an honest regression
analysis, and didn't cherry-pick extreme examples like the NRA is wont to
do, you'll find that what I said is exactly on the mark. The
county-by-county correlation coefficient is something over 0.7.

Now, the dimmer bulbs who get involved with this issue will assume that
I'm
trying to imply some kind of causation. I'm not, as I made clear above.
There certainly is an effect that people who live in high crime areas
(Dallas being the extreme example; Miami was the example a decade or two
ago) will jump at getting a CCW when the law makes it possible, because
they
already have a high crime rate. In that case, higher rates of concealed
carry tend to reflect an already existing crime problem. However, keep in
mind that there is no state in the US in which more than 2% or perhaps
2-1/2% of the adult population obtains a CCW permit. Mostly, it matures at
around 1% - 1-1/2%.


Still, the correlation between rates of CCW holders, which is
more than twice as high in Kern County as any other county in California,
and violent crime is very high. It's more than 2.5X the rate in my county,
which is more representative of places where there is virtually NO gun
culture left at all.

These things tend to be denied by the hard-core gun cultists, but they're
demonstrably true. They're not worth arguing about because a day or two of
real, honest examination of data takes the wind right out of the argument.
I've had to do it several times, especially when I was writing and
lobbying
against some gun control measures here in NJ in the early '90s. At some
level of discussion, you have to deal with the reality rather than with
the
silly anecdotes, like your comparison of Washington and Bismark. That
level
of discussion is almost never reached in forums such as this one. But if
you
get an audience with a legislator who is facing a bill concerning gun
control, you'd better not try "Washington vs. Bismark." They'll dismiss
you
out of hand.

--
Ed Huntress

I do believe that there is a correlation between CCW's and violent
crime, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the high crime rate
inspires more people to carry.

But which comes first, Dan? You'd have to track crime rates and CCW rates
over time. I can give you a rough idea of what you'll find, after decades of
living with UCR and other gun stats on a frequent basis: Rising crime rates
lead to higher rates of concealed-carry permit issuances. But areas in which
there are more CCW holders also have the higher violent crime rates -- and
when crime rates rise, they rise numerically higher in those areas.

That's the dilemma.

Don Foreman is a RCM example.

Don is responding to one case that didn't even happen in his area. And he
wasn't aware of the high crime rates in his town. So, what is he responding
to? I'm not criticizing what he's doing -- I'd probably do the same
myself -- but there's no evidence that he's driven by any actual change in
crime rates.

You can
not get a CCW if you are a violent criminal, and while some CCW
holders may end up committing violent crimes, the rate is probably the
same or lower than the general population in the same area.

Yeah, that's apparently true. Getting a permit in most places requires
passing at least some rudimentary qualifications, so one would presume
they'd be less likely to commit crimes than the population as a whole.

It is
pretty hard to argue that CCW holders are the ones raising the violent
crime rate.

I wouldn't suggest they do. I know the statistics better than that. d8-)
You'll notice that I was raising questions about the gun *culture* that's
associated with higher or lower CCW rates; the attitudinal environment
that's either causative, or a result, or some combination of the two.

That's the part that's interesting to me, but I don't claim to have any
answers. I've discussed the question with some knowledgable people over the
years, and they generally agree that it's not something that's been
measured, and that it would be extremely difficult, or maybe impossible, to
put numbers on it.

But it's clear that there is a wide range of attitudes toward guns and crime
in this country. There also is a wide range of violent crime rates --
particularly crimes committed with guns. There is a correlation between the
two; it just isn't clear what that correlation is based on.

The comparison of Washington DC to most anywhere is not silly. It
pretty much proves that although there is a correlation between CCW
holders and violent crime, CCW holders do not cause violent crime.

I don't know of anyone who really studies the numbers who would claim that
they do.

Washington DC has the highest violent crime rate and the worst public
schools. Bismark probably does not have a high rate of CCW holders,
but it probably has a higher per capita gun ownership than Washington,
DC.

The social environments and cultures of Washington, DC and Bismarck, ND are
so remote from each other that there is hardly any conclusion about gun
ownership or gun control that could be drawn from their relative statistics.
It is indeed a silly comparison.

You might want to look at the violent crime rate for Kennesaw GA.

Dan, no one who has studied and written about gun control over a period of
20 years *doesn't* know about crime rates in Kennesaw. g

In 2005 the violent crime rate jumped to 121 from the 2004 rate of 91.
For the last 25 years heads of households have been required to own
guns and ammo. Oddly your site for violent crime rates does not
include Morton Grove, IL.

Puleeze...there is nothing "odd" about it. You should know that Kennesaw's
gun-ownership law isn't enforced, for starters. And Morton Grove (as well as
Wilmette, with which I am much more familiar) never had a violent crime
problem to begin with, compared to the national norms. Their more recent ups
and downs have nothing to do with gun ownership rates, except in the willful
fantasies of the NRA and the anti-gun legislators in Morton Grove and
Wilmette.

I do not understand your comments on the low percentage of CCW
holders. So the percentage is less than 2 or 3 percent. How does
this relate to anything?

One thing it suggests is that the incidence of deterrence from concealed
carry is so low that it has little or no effect on crime rates. When the
Dept. of Justice has surveyed criminals on the subject, they've found that
there is some deterrence to residential break-ins based on the likelihood of
homeowners to have guns. But those rates are up around 30% - 40% of
households, nationally, with much higher rates in some areas.

There's nothing to indicate that's the case for crime in the street, or
anywhere you'd be able to exercise your concealed gun, where the incidences
run around 1% or 2% -- and that assumes that all CCW holders are ALWAYS
carrying a gun, which they certainly are not. The deterrent effect of
concealed carry, in real communities and with real criminals, seems to be
net-zero.

That's not an argument against concealed carry. But the real argument in
favor of it, the one with substance, has to do with individual rights to
self-defense. The deterrent effect, on the other hand, appears to be another
fantasy.

To me it just means that even in high crime
areas, most people either think that the effort to get a CCW , gun to
carry, and the time to practice to be proficient with a gun is not
worth while.

Who knows? That could be.

I have thought about getting a CCW, but not very seriously. Only once
in my life has there been a occasion where having a gun would have
been nice. And in that case it turned out to be not needed. Besides I
think a pistol is something you carry when you do not think you are
going to need a gun. Shotguns are a much better home defense weapon.
And you do not see soldiers carrying pistols into combat where one
expects to use a weapon.

There is a bill being considered in Congress that would allow a CCW
holder to carry in every state in which CCW's are issued. Kind of
makes sense to me. If you have a drivers license, you can drive in
every state.

We'll see how that one works out. The complication is that the out-of-state
person with the gun has to follow the gun laws in the state to which he's
travelling. Since state laws vary so much, it sounds like a big problem to
me.

But the principle of honoring driver's licenses is based on some points of
law that I haven't looked at for at least 40 years. I'll be interested to
hear the legal arguments, if the proposed law gets anywhere.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:56:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Don Foreman is a RCM example.

Don is responding to one case that didn't even happen in his area. And he
wasn't aware of the high crime rates in his town. So, what is he responding
to? I'm not criticizing what he's doing -- I'd probably do the same
myself -- but there's no evidence that he's driven by any actual change in
crime rates.

Don is (I am) responding to two or maybe three drivers. First, as I
get older I feel less invincible and more vulnerable. That feeling
isn't without basis. The second was Katrina and a week-long
blackout in Fridley shortly thereafter. Things were crazy in New
Orleans after Katrina. On this very newsgroup people argued about
whether or not it was moral to steal or forcefully take another's
food and water in such a situation, and most posters to that thread
asserted that it was. That worried me. During the subsequent
blackout in Fridley when my neighborhood was dark as the Earl of
Hell's waistcoat each night for a week, that was a bit scarey as I
realized that calling 911 would have been futile. The cops were very
busy. That's when I decided that I should have a handgun in my house.
I've had a shotgun in the closet all of my adult life but it's
unwieldy indoors.

Frankly, a strongly contributive factor was that I've always admired
some handguns for their precision, design and craftsmanship in metal.
I'm very lucky that my wife also appreciates the function, beauty and
craftsmanship that some blades and firearms exhibit.

I decided that if I was to have a handgun then I'd damned well better
get some training. The M1911 .45 pistol was my assigned sidearm in
the military decades ago but the rules of engagement for civilians
are very different than for military and getting that wrong could cost
me my freedom.

The training I took and qual test I passed made me eligible for a
CCW if I could also pass a background check so I figured what the
hell and got one. If nothing else it simplifies transporting
handguns to and from ranges.

I discovered that I enjoy shoooting a lot as an activity. My wife
enjoys it too, and she also now has a carry permit. She's never
carried and has no intent to do so, but she knows she could if she
should ever feel it prudent to do so.

Our next-door neighbors, very nice young folks, both have carry
permits. She's an ER nurse, he's a cable guy. They're very good
friends and neighbors, couldn't ask for better. I think he carries
routinely, she doesn't. His job takes him to some parts of metroland
I'd avoid, or carry if I had to go there.

I have never carried as a civilian except for isolated instances,
e.g. when going with a rangebag full of handguns and ammo from a
parking ramp to an indoor range less than a mile from North
Minneapolis which is gangland. A thug or gangsta would have to be
crazy nuts to try something there, but some thugs are nuts -- so I
carry then and I pay attention, condition yellow.

The third factor is that I'm retired so I have time and very low
expenses. Handguns, ammo and training are not cheap and developing
skill does ammo and time even after the gun or guns are paid for. For
me it goes into the entertainment budget: it's the money and time
another retiree might spend on golf. I don't play golf.

The matter of safety on trails has been broached by others as I
explore our wonderful trail system while doing my required 3 miles
per day outdoors. Our splendid summers are part of why we put up
with the winters. If I were really concerned about safety on a
trail I'd stay the hell away from that trail, duh! Still, I'm the
oldest guy I see out there by probably a decade and seniors are
regarded by predators as easy prey, low-hanging fruit so to speak, so
I'll feel a little safer with a popper in me pocket. If that's
mostly illusory comfort then so be it. Great! In fact, perfect! I'm
glad that I'm free to have and carry a pocket pistol if/when it makes
me feel better. I will be very glad to never use it other than in
practice, which I fully expect will be the case.

Author and authority on armed defense Massad Ayoob wrote, "hope is not
a strategy". Some time before that Theordore Roosevelt said, "speak
softly and carry a big stick." I think they make sense.

Someone suggested pepper spray. My problem with that is that I
suspect its range is too short to deal with an assailant armed with
knife or club. Anthing less than 21 feet is too close. It would
certainly be better than nothing, but I'm fairly good with a pistol so
between pepper and popper this pops prefers the popper.

My pocket popper, Ruger LCP .380ACP, arrived today at the rural
gunshop by the lake. I picked it up today. Leon says they're
amazingly accurate and surprisingly pleasant to shoot for such
diminutive size and 12 oz weight. We'll see. I don't expect it to
be fun to shoot but it's very, very easy to carry. It could be a
shirt pocket carry.

It won't win the affection I feel for my Walther PPK or Mary's Sig
P232 .380's but it's considerably smaller and half the weight.

On Jul 22, 4:56*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 2:06 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


I do believe that there is a correlation between CCW's and violent
crime, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the high crime rate
inspires more people to carry.

But which comes first, Dan? You'd have to track crime rates and CCW rates
over time. I can give you a rough idea of what you'll find, after decades of
living with UCR and other gun stats on a frequent basis: Rising crime rates
lead to higher rates of concealed-carry permit issuances. But areas in which
there are more CCW holders also have the higher violent crime rates -- and
when crime rates rise, they rise numerically higher in those areas.

That's the dilemma.
It is pretty obvious in Washington DC that the high rate of violent
crimes came first.


Don Foreman is a RCM example.

Don is responding to one case that didn't even happen in his area. And he
wasn't aware of the high crime rates in his town. So, what is he responding
to? I'm not criticizing what he's doing -- I'd probably do the same
myself -- but there's no evidence that he's driven by any actual change in
crime rates.

Don is responding to a perceived increase in the crime rate. He did
not carry when he perceived the violent crime rate was low. Now that
the perceived crime rate is higher, he is considering carrying.

You can
not get a CCW if you are a violent criminal, and while some CCW
holders may end up committing violent crimes, the rate is probably the
same or lower than the general population in the same area.

Yeah, that's apparently true. Getting a permit in most places requires
passing at least some rudimentary qualifications, so one would presume
they'd be less likely to commit crimes than the population as a whole.

It is
pretty hard to argue that CCW holders are the ones raising the violent
crime rate.

I wouldn't suggest they do. I know the statistics better than that. d8-)
You'll notice that I was raising questions about the gun *culture* that's
associated with higher or lower CCW rates; the attitudinal environment
that's either causative, or a result, or some combination of the two.

That's the part that's interesting to me, but I don't claim to have any
answers. I've discussed the question with some knowledgable people over the
years, and they generally agree that it's not something that's been
measured, and that it would be extremely difficult, or maybe impossible, to
put numbers on it.

But it's clear that there is a wide range of attitudes toward guns and crime
in this country. There also is a wide range of violent crime rates -- *
particularly crimes committed with guns. There is a correlation between the
two; it just isn't clear what that correlation is based on.

I agree that the " gun culture " is responsible for part of the
increase in CCW's. And part of the increase is people that have to
carry valuables in an area that has a high crime rate.

The comparison of Washington DC to most anywhere is not silly. *It
pretty much proves that although there is a correlation between CCW
holders and violent crime, *CCW holders do not cause violent crime.

I don't know of anyone who really studies the numbers who would claim that
they do.

Washington DC has the highest violent crime rate and the worst public
schools. *Bismark probably does not have a high rate of CCW holders,
but it probably has a higher per capita gun ownership than Washington,
DC.

The social environments and cultures of Washington, DC and Bismarck, ND are
so remote from each other that there is hardly any conclusion about gun
ownership or gun control that could be drawn from their relative statistics.
It is indeed a silly comparison.

You might want to look at the violent crime rate for Kennesaw GA.

Dan, no one who has studied and written about gun control over a period of
20 years *doesn't* know about crime rates in Kennesaw. g

In 2005 the violent crime rate jumped to 121 from the 2004 rate of 91.
For the last 25 years heads of households have been required to own
guns and ammo. *Oddly your site for violent crime rates does not
include Morton Grove, IL.

Puleeze...there is nothing "odd" about it. You should know that Kennesaw's
gun-ownership law isn't enforced, for starters. And Morton Grove (as well as
Wilmette, with which I am much more familiar) never had a violent crime
problem to begin with, compared to the national norms. Their more recent ups
and downs have nothing to do with gun ownership rates, except in the willful
fantasies of the NRA and the anti-gun legislators in Morton Grove and
Wilmette.
Enforcing Kennesaws gun ownership law would be very difficult. The
same problem that Morton Grove must have in enforcing a gun ban.
Stupid unenforceable laws in both cases.

I just thought it was odd that there were no crime statistics posted
for Morton Grove. I was trying to see what the rate was to compare to
Kennesaw GA.

I do not understand your comments on the low percentage of CCW
holders. * So *the percentage is less than 2 or 3 percent. *How does
this relate to anything?

One thing it suggests is that the incidence of deterrence from concealed
carry is so low that it has little or no effect on crime rates. When the
Dept. of Justice has surveyed criminals on the subject, they've found that
there is some deterrence to residential break-ins based on the likelihood of
homeowners to have guns. But those rates are up around 30% - 40% of
households, nationally, with much higher rates in some areas.

There's nothing to indicate that's the case for crime in the street, or
anywhere you'd be able to exercise your concealed gun, where the incidences
run around 1% or 2% -- and that assumes that all CCW holders are ALWAYS
carrying a gun, which they certainly are not. The deterrent effect of
concealed carry, in real communities and with real criminals, seems to be
net-zero.

That's not an argument against concealed carry. But the real argument in
favor of it, the one with substance, has to do with individual rights to
self-defense. The deterrent effect, on the other hand, appears to be another
fantasy.

To me it just means that even in high crime
areas, most people either think that the effort to get a CCW , gun to
carry, and the time to practice to be proficient with a gun is not
worth while.

Who knows? That could be.

I have thought about getting a CCW, but not very seriously. *Only once
in my life has there been a occasion where having a gun would have
been nice. And in that case it turned out to be not needed. *Besides I
think a pistol is something you carry when you do not think you are
going to need a gun. *Shotguns are a much better home defense weapon.
And you do not see soldiers carrying pistols into combat where one
expects to use a weapon.
There is a bill being considered in Congress that would allow a CCW
holder to carry in every state in which CCW's are issued. *Kind of
makes sense to me. *If you have a drivers license, you can drive in
every state.

We'll see how that one works out. The complication is that the out-of-state
person with the gun has to follow the gun laws in the state to which he's
travelling. Since state laws vary so much, it sounds like a big problem to
me.

It might be a problem, but it would be less of a problem than what
exists now.


Dan

But the principle of honoring driver's licenses is based on some points of
law that I haven't looked at for at least 40 years. I'll be interested to
hear the legal arguments, if the proposed law gets anywhere.

--
Ed Huntress