rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:51 am, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:

I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault that would be recoverable
for most could now be fatal for me.


But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it? It seems to me, that if you
were stopped by an armed assailant, you'd be dead before you got the
gun out of your pocket. If the assailant was unarmed, you'd have a
tough time justifying shooting him. If there were multiple assailants,
then what?

I really am interested in this phenomenon, as it truly is foreign to
me. I'd rather hear this from you, Don, as you appear to be a
reasonable person who will think before giving an answer.

I'd also like to hear how CCW would have prevented the death of my
friend's cousin:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/nyregion/20car.html



The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything. That you will survive a mugging. That
you will have to shoot someone. That you will be safe. Nope. Having the
gun guarantees nothing. But when your life is on the line having it is a
lot better than not. At least you have a chance when you are armed. When
you are not you are at the mercy of someone else, and that is not a
place I want to be.

Hawke

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:57:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:03:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Which implies that we're either going to vastly suppress gun ownership, or
we're going to have to live with high rates of gun crime, at least until the
cows come home -- and maybe until we're drinking synthetic milk and eating
soyburgers, and there are no more cows. Sooner or later the comforting
myths, such as the idea that carrying guns suppresses crime, will run out of
steam, and we'll have to face the bald fact that we can have guns or
substantially lower violent crime rates, but not both.

A more direct approach would be to vastly suppress criminal use of
guns in the commission of other crimes.

Everybody I know personally who carries is irrationally afraid of the
boogeyman. They'll never admit to that fear, yet will spend untold
hours yakking with others of like mind about the stopping power of
this or that caliber, or where one must drag the shot "perp" if
necessary in order to feign legality. Crime could be reduced to zero,
they'll still carry. They'll keep guns handy at all times even if
there's a demonstrated risk of access by kids. They'll willingly and
obsessively remain captive to their fear. If you doubt any of it, or
want to test the pocket-knife analogy to those you know, then compare
some carry-types to normal be-prepared types. The latter equips for
what's likely, but the former prioritizes in order to assuage his
fear. Exhibits 1 through 1million, gummy's posts demonstrating that
his guns are more important to him than *everything* else. He lacks
the intelligence to put his fear in perspective, and would carry a
main and a backup piece full-time even if he lived on Sesame Street.

A brief anecdote - a guy I know lost everything he owned in a fire. He
had lots to cry about, but it was the loss of his guns that he took
the hardest. Which was nuts because his guns were all old junk anyway.
They weren't worth but a fraction of the value of his home and tools.
All things considered he didn't need a single gun, and doing without
one was the least of his problems. His situation was pretty desperate:
no home, no job, no driver's license, no prospects. It wasn't all that
surprising that he turned to crime. You'll never guess what he got
caught stealing... Ironically, now that he's in prison, at least he
has something real to be afraid of.

If it makes me feel safer and
doesn't endanger or harm anyone else, then my liberty does not
compromise your security.

I can list a half-dozen injury-shootings in my rural neighborhood.
Most involved alcohol. Two of the victims (one dead) was shot by his
own gun. There's no question where the real risk is. Guns are like
freon - once sold it's highly likely to end up in the atmosphere. The
risk may be small, but your pocket popper is more likely to someday
end up in a schoolyard than to be used to save your life. Multiply
that by the millions of these things that start out as "protection",
and it's obvious why the US has such a problem with the issue. Not
that it's limited to guns, the basic problem is that everyone wants to
do whatever they want, and too many rationalize away their
responsibility when things don't go as they intended, no matter how
predictable the consequences.

Wayne

On Jul 25, 11:41*pm, wrote:
the basic problem is that everyone wants to
do whatever they want, and too many rationalize away their
responsibility when things don't go as they intended, no matter how
predictable the consequences.

Wayne

This is not a problem. Everyone wants to do what they want. Dud. Of
course people want to do what they want to do. By Definition

It is also reasonable to assume that things may not go as assumed.
Stuff happens.
And it is human nature to rationalize when things do not go as
planned. Duh if they had been perceptive enough to realize the
consequences , they probably would not have wanted whatever it was
they wanted.

Ed argues that the percentage of CCW holders is so low that criminals
do not think they will encounter someone with a CCW. Super Dud. They
are criminals. Not the smartest segment of society. They also do no
think they will get caught for the crimes they commit either. That is
why severe punishment does not reduce crime ( other that warehousing
criminals until they are older and somewhat smarter ). Criminals do
not think they will be caught. Can you imagine a criminal thinking,"
if I commit a crime I will get caught and be put in jail. Sure that
is what I want. Time in the slammer."

Dan

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:37:03 -0700, Hawke wrote:



The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything.

I would suggest that pulling a gun in those circumstances is likely to
guarantee your getting shot. But what do I know?


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Jul 25, 8:29*pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:37:03 -0700, Hawke wrote:

The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything.

I would suggest that pulling a gun in those circumstances is likely to
guarantee your getting shot. But what do I know?

Mark Rand
RTFM

And THAT is what I thought I was saying by when I wrote that having a
gun could easily make a bad situation worse. I can readily imagine a
scene where the bad guy has a gun, and is prompted to use it when he
realizes that you have one as well.

On Jul 26, 1:49*am, wrote:


We can assume that if we keep giving in to irrational fear, then the
number of guns will continue to increase, as will our tendency to have
more gun death than every other industrial society.

Carrying a concealed weapon is not giving in to an irrational fear any
more than my getting a flu shot is giving in to an irrational fear.
There is a real possibility that carrying a concealed weapon may prove
to be a wise decision. Whether either is worth doing is up to the
individual.

I have known three men who carried weapons everyday. None of them
carried because of an irrational fear. They were all people who were
out there in society every day. One of them had at least one occasion
to use his weapon.



And it is human nature to rationalize when things do not go as
planned.

It's human nature to be afraid of snakes and spiders. We're supposed
to be smart enough to see past our nature and for the most part,
ignore the snakes and spiders.

You obviously did not grow up where I did. I was taught at an early
age to pay attention to snakes and spiders.

Duh if they had been perceptive enough to realize the
consequences , they probably would not have wanted whatever it was
they wanted.

No, we can want whatever. But we *know* the consequences of some of
it. So we have to *do* the hard thing, instead of taking the easy way
of rationalizing or scapegoating.

Ed argues that the percentage of CCW holders is so low that criminals
do not think they will encounter someone with a CCW. *Super Dud. *They
are criminals. *Not the smartest segment of society. *They also do no
think they will get caught for the crimes they commit either. *That is
why severe punishment does not reduce crime ( other that warehousing
criminals until they are older and somewhat smarter ). Criminals do
not think they will be caught. *Can you imagine a criminal thinking,"
if I commit a crime I will get caught and be put in jail. *Sure that
is what I want. *Time in the slammer."

Just because there are stupid criminals doesn't mean that you're
likely to come in contact with one. The idea that everybody needs
protection from small risks is largely responsible for the ridiculous
number of guns floating around. The fear feeds on itself, and the
result is that in our rush to pretend that we're strong, we actually
end up demonstrating that we're really fearful pansies.

The facts is that I have come in contact with criminals. So your not
likely argument is flat wrong. Your life may be different, but mine
has been interesting.

Dan



Wayne

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?
==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

Some current news items on NJ, apropos the thread title:
http://newark.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2009/nk072109.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/ny...4excerpts.html
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-fri...being-indicted
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPqaAjuG4oSA
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aS75MsiDa4WU
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=azRuQei2G4Gc

Remember, if you live in NJ, these are the people you are
entrusting with the safety of yourself, your family and your
property. The same thing holds true for the other large metro
areas such as Chicago and Detroit.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:26:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:29*pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:37:03 -0700, Hawke wrote:

The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything.

I would suggest that pulling a gun in those circumstances is likely to
guarantee your getting shot. But what do I know?

Mark Rand
RTFM

And THAT is what I thought I was saying by when I wrote that having a
gun could easily make a bad situation worse. I can readily imagine a
scene where the bad guy has a gun, and is prompted to use it when he
realizes that you have one as well.

I try to offer informative sources by experienced and respected
authors, you respond with what you can readily imagine.

Your imaginary point is moot because at that point he's very probably
going to kill you anyway. Imagine that! He's already committed
armed assault, possibly robbery and you can now ID him, he's going to
suddenly become merciful, "do the right thing" and let you go? In
your imagination, perhaps.

RTFM indeed! I've suggested a few references written by knowledgable
and experienced authors. If you dislike guns for whatever reason you
can still employ some very effective passive self-defense measures.

On occasions where such measures fail, a gun can be an effective
equalizer of disparities in size, strength, gender and age if the user
is skilled and employs good tactics -- including the passive measures
I've alluded to. If you're more comfortable being without one then be
so. Most good folks are, you'll be in good company. I am most of the
time.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:59:33 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?
==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

LOL. I do keep falling for that, don't I! It's like herding cats.
No namecalling yet, though.

Larry Jaques is probably larfing his arse off about now.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:48:20 -0400, Wes wrote:


Today was interesting. I walked out to my car, walking around the rear of it as I
normally do to get into the drivers side. Sat down, turned on the mp3 player, started the
car, put it into reverse and backed up, looking up in rear view mirror.

The look of the woman's horror of seeing my car coming at her car offset my shock to see a
car behind me all of a sudden on my 200ft private drive.

The second shock was a member of a religous sect that thought it was so important for my
soul to block some one they could see was leaving his home so they could hand out their
little tract was standing next to my car door.

In less than 30 seconds someone got inside my zone where I felt perfectly safe. I was a
gentlemen, told the guy I need to be some where, took his tract, and watched him depart.

I'm more irritated by my lack of awareness than his rudeness in blocking my egress.

Wes

A good friend of my wife's parents was mugged and killed in his own
driveway a while back. It was nighttime, they were returning from an
evening with friends. They were in their 70's. Doc was probably
half-smashed and oblivious to his surroundings.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:41:20 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:57:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:03:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Which implies that we're either going to vastly suppress gun ownership, or
we're going to have to live with high rates of gun crime, at least until the
cows come home -- and maybe until we're drinking synthetic milk and eating
soyburgers, and there are no more cows. Sooner or later the comforting
myths, such as the idea that carrying guns suppresses crime, will run out of
steam, and we'll have to face the bald fact that we can have guns or
substantially lower violent crime rates, but not both.

A more direct approach would be to vastly suppress criminal use of
guns in the commission of other crimes.

Everybody I know personally who carries is irrationally afraid of the
boogeyman. They'll never admit to that fear, yet will spend untold
hours yakking with others of like mind about the stopping power of
this or that caliber, or where one must drag the shot "perp" if
necessary in order to feign legality. Crime could be reduced to zero,
they'll still carry. They'll keep guns handy at all times even if
there's a demonstrated risk of access by kids. They'll willingly and
obsessively remain captive to their fear. If you doubt any of it, or
want to test the pocket-knife analogy to those you know, then compare
some carry-types to normal be-prepared types. The latter equips for
what's likely, but the former prioritizes in order to assuage his
fear. Exhibits 1 through 1million, gummy's posts demonstrating that
his guns are more important to him than *everything* else. He lacks
the intelligence to put his fear in perspective, and would carry a
main and a backup piece full-time even if he lived on Sesame Street.

Cookie monsters be there ya know. Reckon a guy'd wanna be packin' at
least a .454 Casul in cookie monster country. Tawk about stopping
power...

A brief anecdote - a guy I know lost everything he owned in a fire. He
had lots to cry about, but it was the loss of his guns that he took
the hardest. Which was nuts because his guns were all old junk anyway.
They weren't worth but a fraction of the value of his home and tools.
All things considered he didn't need a single gun, and doing without
one was the least of his problems. His situation was pretty desperate:
no home, no job, no driver's license, no prospects. It wasn't all that
surprising that he turned to crime. You'll never guess what he got
caught stealing... Ironically, now that he's in prison, at least he
has something real to be afraid of.

Perhaps you need to meet some different people. I know several
folks that have carry permits and are skilled with handguns. They
include engineers, scientists, research managers, an ICU nurse, good
neighbors and two grandmothers but none like those you describe.
I can list a half-dozen injury-shootings in my rural neighborhood.
Most involved alcohol. Two of the victims (one dead) was shot by his
own gun. There's no question where the real risk is.

In your rural neighborhood, right? Duly noted and thanks, I'll avoid
it on my walks.

Guns are like freon - once sold it's highly likely to end up in the atmosphere. The
risk may be small, but your pocket popper is more likely to someday
end up in a schoolyard than to be used to save your life.

Is that because the grip is small enough for a 12-year-old to grasp?
Or is it just because guns are like freon?

Multiply that by the millions of these things that start out as "protection",
and it's obvious why the US has such a problem with the issue.

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

Not that it's limited to guns, the basic problem is that everyone wants to
do whatever they want, and too many rationalize away their
responsibility when things don't go as they intended, no matter how
predictable the consequences.

I've also noticed that people tend to want to do what they want to do.
Disgraceful!

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:32:56 -0400, Bob Engelhardt
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:
... I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a
gun been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death.
...
Good point! Many years ago I was in a situation where I was so enraged
that I didn't much *care* about the consequences. Violence ensued, but
only to the black eye state. It's very easy for me to see how things
can get very bad very quickly.

Bob

Roger that, Bob. I didn't own a handgun until after age 60 for that
very reason. I once had a really nice new outboard motor stolen from
me and I wasn't sure I wouldn't have shot the sonofabitch if I'd
caught him in the act. Doing that would have been wrong and would
have sent me to prison and ruined my life, ample reason for me not to
have a handgun at that point in my life.

I've mellowed some since then.

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:26:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:29 pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:37:03 -0700, Hawke wrote:

The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything.

I would suggest that pulling a gun in those circumstances is likely to
guarantee your getting shot. But what do I know?

Mark Rand
RTFM

And THAT is what I thought I was saying by when I wrote that having a
gun could easily make a bad situation worse. I can readily imagine a
scene where the bad guy has a gun, and is prompted to use it when he
realizes that you have one as well.

I try to offer informative sources by experienced and respected
authors, you respond with what you can readily imagine.

Your imaginary point is moot because at that point he's very probably
going to kill you anyway. Imagine that! He's already committed
armed assault, possibly robbery and you can now ID him, he's going to
suddenly become merciful, "do the right thing" and let you go? In
your imagination, perhaps.

RTFM indeed! I've suggested a few references written by knowledgable
and experienced authors. If you dislike guns for whatever reason you
can still employ some very effective passive self-defense measures.

On occasions where such measures fail, a gun can be an effective
equalizer of disparities in size, strength, gender and age if the user
is skilled and employs good tactics -- including the passive measures
I've alluded to. If you're more comfortable being without one then be
so. Most good folks are, you'll be in good company. I am most of the
time.


http://www.wftv.com/news/20179569/detail.html


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:27:03 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:26:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 25, 8:29*pm, Mark Rand wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:37:03 -0700, Hawke wrote:

The point that you miss is that if you don't have it you have no options
whatsoever. If an assailant wants you dead, you're dead. If he wants to
make you do things you don't want to do, you will do them if a gun is
pointed at your head. You're right about one thing though. Having a gun
doesn't guarantee you anything.

I would suggest that pulling a gun in those circumstances is likely to
guarantee your getting shot. But what do I know?

Mark Rand
RTFM

And THAT is what I thought I was saying by when I wrote that having a
gun could easily make a bad situation worse. I can readily imagine a
scene where the bad guy has a gun, and is prompted to use it when he
realizes that you have one as well.

I try to offer informative sources by experienced and respected
authors, you respond with what you can readily imagine.

Your imaginary point is moot because at that point he's very probably
going to kill you anyway. Imagine that! He's already committed
armed assault, possibly robbery and you can now ID him, he's going to
suddenly become merciful, "do the right thing" and let you go? In
your imagination, perhaps.


'Twas a serious thought and is followed by a serious question:-
If a victim is robbed/mugged at gunpoint and offers no resistance, what are
the probabilities of getting shot/not getting shot?

We don't have the direct experience on this side of the pond to any great
extent, since even ownership of a hand gun can get you five years of free
accommodation at Her Majesties pleasure. Use of it in furtherance of a crime
gets you a longer holiday away from society.


regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

On Jul 26, 1:21*am, Don Foreman wrote:

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! * We don't need more *gun
control legislation, *we merely need to collect them *from the
schoolyards and atmosphere *more often. *

And with that, this conversation has come completely full circle. The
original post, if you remember was about a program in Newark, NJ to do
just that. Collect the guns off the streets, at a price of $1k each. I
think it's a good idea. You may or may not.

On Jul 26, 12:33*am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:59:33 -0500, F. George McDuffee



wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?
==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

LOL. * I do keep falling for that, *don't I! *It's like herding cats.
No namecalling yet, though.

*Larry Jaques *is probably larfing his arse off about now.

So, civil disagreement is now trolling? Sorry, Don, I'm not going to
go out an get an education in urban warfare tactics just so you can
have a worthy opponent in this discussion. I was interested in your
thoughts on the subject. I now have them. I'm satisfied, and done with
it. But jeeze, no need for you to get all snotty about it.

Sheesh.

On Jul 25, 9:59*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck



wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?

==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

Some current news items on NJ, apropos the thread title:http://newark.fbi..gov/dojpressrel/2...d=azRuQei2G4Gc

Remember, if you live in NJ, these are the people you are
entrusting with the safety of yourself, your family and your
property. *The same thing holds true for the other large metro
areas such as Chicago and Detroit.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Talk about trolling,,,which of those articles has anything to do with
the subject of Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker's program to get guns off
the streets of Newark?

Further, If you go back and actually take the time to read what I
wrote, you'll find that I did not say anything about government
protecting me. I said that there are rules, and most people obey them
not because they are afraid of getting caught, but because it's the
right thing to do.

Sorry, George, disagreement is not trolling.
I'm done with this, Thanks.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:36:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:49*am, wrote:


We can assume that if we keep giving in to irrational fear, then the
number of guns will continue to increase, as will our tendency to have
more gun death than every other industrial society.

Carrying a concealed weapon is not giving in to an irrational fear any
more than my getting a flu shot is giving in to an irrational fear.

It's not the same at all. The risk of a downside for a flu shot is
miniscule. If you're carrying concealed while mugged, the risk of the
mugger getting your gun as well as your wallet might be 50%. Then your
gun is out of your control and you buy another one...

There is a real possibility that carrying a concealed weapon may prove
to be a wise decision.

A possibility for sure. But what are the real odds compared to the
reality of where buying millions of guns for "protection" has gotten
us?

Whether either is worth doing is up to the
individual.

Sure, but the trouble is that too many of us prove day in and day out
that we can't be trusted to use common sense. Which is why you have
folks who don't have the wisdom to walk away from an escalating
argument, or the manual dexterity to fold a map, believing that in a
tense situation they'll suddenly exercise good judgment and be able to
safely handle a firearm.

I have known three men who carried weapons everyday. None of them
carried because of an irrational fear. They were all people who were
out there in society every day. One of them had at least one occasion
to use his weapon.

Based on your overall tone, and the unlikelihood that you know what's
truly in these folks' minds, I don't give much credence to your
anecdotes. Regardless, there *are* some cases where people might want
to carry for a legitimate purpose. Unfortunately, it's but a tiny
fraction of those who carry just because they're irrationally afraid.
If you really live where there's a high risk of being mugged or
whatever, then the obvious solution is to move. Don't say you can't
afford it, 'cause if you have a computer and an Internet connection
and time to waste on it, then it's likely you have options. But as I
said, people who are irrationally fearful can't escape that by moving.

It's human nature to be afraid of snakes and spiders. We're supposed
to be smart enough to see past our nature and for the most part,
ignore the snakes and spiders.

You obviously did not grow up where I did. I was taught at an early
age to pay attention to snakes and spiders.

I live in rattlesnake country. Best neighbors I've ever had, even if
though I have to occasionally take an unruly one down the road. It's
irrational for anyone who claims to be intelligent to be unduly afraid
of snakes, or to shoot them on sight.

Just because there are stupid criminals doesn't mean that you're
likely to come in contact with one. The idea that everybody needs
protection from small risks is largely responsible for the ridiculous
number of guns floating around. The fear feeds on itself, and the
result is that in our rush to pretend that we're strong, we actually
end up demonstrating that we're really fearful pansies.

The facts is that I have come in contact with criminals.

I doubt that your genuine risk is but a fraction of what you believe
it to be.

Your life may be different, but mine
has been interesting.

There are lots of low-lifes in my area. They're mostly harmless except
to each other, and even then it generally takes some booze to make
them troublesome. A little common sense goes a long way.

Which reminds me... a lot of people are fond of pretending that we can
somehow return to the fictional Mayberry life. But didn't Andy face
down all manner of criminals without a gun? And wasn't a whole lot of
the humor of that show based on Barney's silly need to be armed? How
come everybody thinks that they're Andy even though they act like
Barney?

Wayne

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:21:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:41:20 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:57:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


A more direct approach would be to vastly suppress criminal use of
guns in the commission of other crimes.

Everybody I know personally who carries is irrationally afraid of the
boogeyman. They'll never admit to that fear, yet will spend untold
hours yakking with others of like mind about the stopping power of
this or that caliber, or where one must drag the shot "perp" if
necessary in order to feign legality. Crime could be reduced to zero,
they'll still carry. They'll keep guns handy at all times even if
there's a demonstrated risk of access by kids. They'll willingly and
obsessively remain captive to their fear. If you doubt any of it, or
want to test the pocket-knife analogy to those you know, then compare
some carry-types to normal be-prepared types. The latter equips for
what's likely, but the former prioritizes in order to assuage his
fear. Exhibits 1 through 1million, gummy's posts demonstrating that
his guns are more important to him than *everything* else. He lacks
the intelligence to put his fear in perspective, and would carry a
main and a backup piece full-time even if he lived on Sesame Street.

Cookie monsters be there ya know. Reckon a guy'd wanna be packin' at
least a .454 Casul in cookie monster country. Tawk about stopping
power...

You're evading the point.

A brief anecdote - a guy I know lost everything he owned in a fire. He
had lots to cry about, but it was the loss of his guns that he took
the hardest. Which was nuts because his guns were all old junk anyway.
They weren't worth but a fraction of the value of his home and tools.
All things considered he didn't need a single gun, and doing without
one was the least of his problems. His situation was pretty desperate:
no home, no job, no driver's license, no prospects. It wasn't all that
surprising that he turned to crime. You'll never guess what he got
caught stealing... Ironically, now that he's in prison, at least he
has something real to be afraid of.

Perhaps you need to meet some different people.

It was just an anecdote. He was unique, but his fear and primal love
of guns was typical of many in this newsgroup.

I know several
folks that have carry permits and are skilled with handguns. They
include engineers, scientists, research managers, an ICU nurse, good
neighbors and two grandmothers but none like those you describe.

Most of them are probably exactly as I describe - irrationally
fearful. I know an otherwise sensible guy who's seldom more than 20
paces from one of his guns, but often 20 miles from his frickin
wallet. And I can remember several situations where somebody who
carries needed to borrow a pen or a pocketknife. It's obvious that
their needs and priorities bear no sensible relation to one another.

I can list a half-dozen injury-shootings in my rural neighborhood.
Most involved alcohol. Two of the victims (one dead) was shot by his
own gun. There's no question where the real risk is.

In your rural neighborhood, right? Duly noted and thanks, I'll avoid
it on my walks.

I can walk for miles without seeing *anyone*. But if *you* lived here,
you'd probably want a gun more than ever, just like most of the city
folk and all of the crackpots. They blame their fear on the critters,
but the fact is that most of them are creeped out if they don't have
scads of people around, and lots of lights at night.

Guns are like freon - once sold it's highly likely to end up in the atmosphere. The
risk may be small, but your pocket popper is more likely to someday
end up in a schoolyard than to be used to save your life.

Is that because the grip is small enough for a 12-year-old to grasp?
Or is it just because guns are like freon?

Multiply that by the millions of these things that start out as "protection",
and it's obvious why the US has such a problem with the issue.

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

I thought you were smart enough to grasp my points, and yet you're
pretending that they're going over your head.

Not that it's limited to guns, the basic problem is that everyone wants to
do whatever they want, and too many rationalize away their
responsibility when things don't go as they intended, no matter how
predictable the consequences.

I've also noticed that people tend to want to do what they want to do.
Disgraceful!

As I said, what's disgraceful is that so many can't make realistic
sense of the real risk and consequences. Look around man, the gun
problem has gotten out of control, and you can't rationalize it away.
Nobody wants to do their part, because we've become accustomed to
getting what we want no matter how self-destructive the result.

Wayne

On Jul 26, 3:24*pm, wrote:


It's not the same at all. The risk of a downside for a flu shot is
miniscule. If you're carrying concealed while mugged, the risk of the
mugger getting your gun as well as your wallet might be 50%. Then your
gun is out of your control and you buy another one..

And it might not be 50%. You have your estimate of the risks of
carrying a handgun, but that does not mean it is accurate. I am
pretty sure that the risk depends on the person carrying a concealed
weapon.

My father used to tell me about an incident that happened to him when
he was working in rural Mexico. It was a weekend and everyone except
my father had gone to town. Some Mexicans drifted into camp and
started shooting an old Mauser pistol at a target they put on a tree.
They kept wanting my father to get his gun and shoot with them. My
father declined as he was sure that they really wanted to rob him of
his gun. Guns being valuable in Mexico. They were not having any
luck at hitting the target, so my father offered to shoot their gun to
see if it was accurate. When he shot he noticed the sights were badly
aligned, so he did not use them. He hit the target near the center.
Handed it back and said the gun seemed okay to him. He said that
within thirty minutes all the Mexicans had drifted away.
..

There is a real possibility that carrying a concealed weapon may prove
to be a wise decision.

A possibility for sure. But what are the real odds compared to the
reality of where buying millions of guns for "protection" has gotten
us?

Whether either is worth doing is up to the
individual.

Still up to the individual. I do not believe that many of us can be
trusted to vote or carry a handgun. But you have to allow people to
make decisions. Unless you know of some more intelligent species that
humans should grant the power of making decisions for them.


Sure, but the trouble is that too many of us prove day in and day out
that we can't be trusted to use common sense. Which is why you have
folks who don't have the wisdom to walk away from an escalating
argument, or the manual dexterity to fold a map, believing that in a
tense situation they'll suddenly exercise good judgment and be able to
safely handle a firearm.

I have known three men who carried weapons everyday. *None of them
carried because of an irrational fear. *They were all people who were
out there in society every day. *One of them had at least one occasion
to use his weapon.

Based on your overall tone, and the unlikelihood that you know what's
truly in these folks' minds, I don't give much credence to your
anecdotes. Regardless, there *are* some cases where people might want
to carry for a legitimate purpose. Unfortunately, it's but a tiny
fraction of those who carry just because they're irrationally afraid.
If you really live where there's a high risk of being mugged or
whatever, then the obvious solution is to move. Don't say you can't
afford it, 'cause if you have a computer and an Internet connection
and time to waste on it, then it's likely you have options. But as I
said, people who are irrationally fearful can't escape that by moving.


It was kind of a trick answer. Two of them were my cousins and one a
guy I worked with when I was a teenager. They were all policemen.
And I do not believe any of them had irrational fears. But in the US
policemen carry because there is a real risk that they will encounter
an armed criminal. Why do you keep trying to say that policemen
should be the only ones allowed to defend themselves? Most policemen
never have to draw their weapons. Just as most people that carry
concealed never have to draw their weapons. But everyone should be
allowed to defend themselves, not just policemen.

As to your suggestion that one should move if living in a high risk
area. But individuals get to choice whether they want to live in a
high risk area or not. Everyone can not live in a below average risk
area.



It's human nature to be afraid of snakes and spiders. We're supposed
to be smart enough to see past our nature and for the most part,
ignore the snakes and spiders.
You obviously did not grow up where I did. *I was taught at an early
age to pay attention to snakes and spiders.

I live in rattlesnake country. Best neighbors I've ever had, even if
though I have to occasionally take an unruly one down the road. It's
irrational for anyone who claims to be intelligent to be unduly afraid
of snakes, or to shoot them on sight.

Never said unduly afraid or that one should shoot snakes on sight.
Just that I do not ignore them. They are worth paying attention to.

Just because there are stupid criminals doesn't mean that you're
likely to come in contact with one. The idea that everybody needs
protection from small risks is largely responsible for the ridiculous
number of guns floating around. The fear feeds on itself, and the
result is that in our rush to pretend that we're strong, we actually
end up demonstrating that we're really fearful pansies.
The facts is that I have come in contact with criminals.

I doubt that your genuine risk is but a fraction of what you believe
it to be.

I do not think my genuine risk is very high. But I did work with a
guy for a year or so that had committed armed robbery with a
shotgun. And was later killed by the police in an armed conflict.
Very sad.

Your life may be different, but mine
has been interesting.

There are lots of low-lifes in my area. They're mostly harmless except
to each other, and even then it generally takes some booze to make
them troublesome. A little common sense goes a long way.

Which reminds me... a lot of people are fond of pretending that we can
somehow return to the fictional Mayberry life.

I pretty much live in a Mayberry area now.

Dan

But didn't Andy face
down all manner of criminals without a gun? And wasn't a whole lot of
the humor of that show based on Barney's silly need to be armed? How
come everybody thinks that they're Andy even though they act like
Barney?

Wayne

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:35:42 -0700, wrote:


I can walk for miles without seeing *anyone*. But if *you* lived here,
you'd probably want a gun more than ever, just like most of the city
folk and all of the crackpots. They blame their fear on the critters,
but the fact is that most of them are creeped out if they don't have
scads of people around, and lots of lights at night.

An excellent example of your sweeping generalities and distorted
perception of reality.

In fact, I am presently in rural Pope county, MN. There's one stop
light in the entire county. There are often people here at the lake
on weekends, but often not during the week.

There is light at night light if the sky is clear and the moon is
full. On a clear night I can see a bazillion stars over the lake,
stars that aren't visible when masked by skyglow from city lights.

There are critters to be sure, but none that are dangerous. Well, the
deer can be dangerous to the garden I guess. There are rattlesnakes
in MN but I've never seen one. Black bears don't bother people. There
are wolves further north but not around here. Maybe a few coyotes.

A mouse ran out from under the bed yesterday. My wife wasn't
particularly happy about that but didn't suggest that we shoot it.

I don't carry here. I don't know anyone who does though there may be
some I don't know about. Plenty of folks enjoy shooting, though.
There's a nice little range about 20 miles from here, and one can go
up behind the ammonia plant if one just wants to sight in a rifle or
something.

So much for the distorted rationality of your fear of guns and
responsible citizens that have them. You live so rural that you can
walk for miles without seeing another soul, yet you are fearful of the
1% (or so) of the population that have passed background checks and
are demonstrably among our most responsible and law-abiding citizens.
Perhaps if you were afraid of heights you'd support outlawing ladders?

In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:21*am, Don Foreman wrote:

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! * We don't need more *gun
control legislation, *we merely need to collect them *from the
schoolyards and atmosphere *more often. *

And with that, this conversation has come completely full circle. The
original post, if you remember was about a program in Newark, NJ to do
just that. Collect the guns off the streets, at a price of $1k each. I
think it's a good idea. You may or may not.

It isn't a good idea, no matter what one thinks of guns and gun control.

The problem is simple economics -- there are at least 100 million old
guns around, guns that cost no more than $100 to buy. With a 90% profit
margin, the supply will be infinite, and Newark will go bankrupt long
before the supply of guns is detectably affected, never mind
significantly.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:21 am, Don Foreman wrote:

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

And with that, this conversation has come completely full circle. The
original post, if you remember was about a program in Newark, NJ to do
just that. Collect the guns off the streets, at a price of $1k each. I
think it's a good idea. You may or may not.

It isn't a good idea, no matter what one thinks of guns and gun control.

The problem is simple economics -- there are at least 100 million old
guns around, guns that cost no more than $100 to buy. With a 90% profit
margin, the supply will be infinite, and Newark will go bankrupt long
before the supply of guns is detectably affected, never mind
significantly.

Joe Gwinn

Not a problem, Joe. With every $1,000 gun bounty in Newark goes a 3- to
5-year minimum prison sentence for the guy who had it. It kind of
discourages gaming the system.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:32:38 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


'Twas a serious thought and is followed by a serious question:-
If a victim is robbed/mugged at gunpoint and offers no resistance, what are
the probabilities of getting shot/not getting shot?

We don't have the direct experience on this side of the pond to any great
extent, since even ownership of a hand gun can get you five years of free
accommodation at Her Majesties pleasure. Use of it in furtherance of a crime
gets you a longer holiday away from society.

I can't authoritatively answer that other than that it is considerably
higher than zero. The risk is greatest if the assailant is already a
twice-busted felon because a third conviction could get him life as a
habitual criminal. Therefore, for him anyway, the assault or robbery
carries about the same penalty as homicide and killing any witnesses
may reduce his risk of being caught and convicted.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:32:38 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


'Twas a serious thought and is followed by a serious question:-
If a victim is robbed/mugged at gunpoint and offers no resistance, what
are
the probabilities of getting shot/not getting shot?

We don't have the direct experience on this side of the pond to any great
extent, since even ownership of a hand gun can get you five years of free
accommodation at Her Majesties pleasure. Use of it in furtherance of a
crime
gets you a longer holiday away from society.

I can't authoritatively answer that other than that it is considerably
higher than zero. The risk is greatest if the assailant is already a
twice-busted felon because a third conviction could get him life as a
habitual criminal. Therefore, for him anyway, the assault or robbery
carries about the same penalty as homicide and killing any witnesses
may reduce his risk of being caught and convicted.


The data on this point is available. I don't recall it well enough for a
quote, but my recollection is that your chance of being shot if you put up
resistance (including resistance with a gun) is slightly *lower* than if you
put up no resistance.

That's a statistical conclusion and it would be worth investigating it
further. Nevertheless, it's suggestive of the efficacy of being armed in
self-defense.

FWIW, and to avoid confusing anyone who thinks I'm arguing the opposite,
this has nothing to do with the availability or propensity of criminals to
use a gun. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and the experience of the UK
and most continental European countries contrasts sharply with that of
countries where there are lots of guns available to nearly anyone who isn't
a criminal or insane -- such as the US. (Of course, guns are readily
available here to criminals and to the insane, as well.)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:00:32 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 26, 12:33*am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:59:33 -0500, F. George McDuffee



wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely.
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?
==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

LOL. * I do keep falling for that, *don't I! *It's like herding cats.
No namecalling yet, though.

*Larry Jaques *is probably larfing his arse off about now.

So, civil disagreement is now trolling? Sorry, Don, I'm not going to
go out an get an education in urban warfare tactics just so you can
have a worthy opponent in this discussion. I was interested in your
thoughts on the subject. I now have them. I'm satisfied, and done with
it. But jeeze, no need for you to get all snotty about it.

Sheesh.

He did have a point, r.s. The thread started as my impressions of a
particular pistol. There are shooters on this n.g. that might find
that interesting. You then asked about "circumstances and
methodology", to which I responded. Then the "yes but" started.
I cited references. You don't want to read a book and inform yourself
on the subject of self defense (which is very different from urban
warfare) but you do want to debate and present views based on sparse
and sometimes incorrect information or perceptions. Perhaps you
shouldn't be amazed if I get a bit bristly when you start with "could
you clue me in", "it seems to me" and "it is truely foreign to me"
but then want to debate whether I should be allowed to possess the
object I reviewed -- while you still don't care to inform yourself on
relevent issues like the very methodology you claimed to inquire
about.

That lures Wayne out of his off-grid hideout to assert that I am so
irresponsible or inept that my gun will end up in a schoolyard and
that anyone who has a carry permit is a timorous crackpot. You're not
responsible for what he says but t'was you that took the thread in
that direction.

Then, when Unka George suggests that you're trolling and I see humor
in that, you call me snotty.

I thought I was quite patient with you.

On Jul 26, 1:09*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:00:32 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck



wrote:
On Jul 26, 12:33*am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:59:33 -0500, F. George McDuffee

wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:51=A0am, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:
I hope you never feel the need to take it out of your pocket.

Me too. =A0I haven't been mugged in 67 years and I only know one person
who has so I think my ever actually drawing it is highly unllikely..
What's changed is that a mugging/assault =A0that would be =A0recoverable
for most could =A0now =A0be fatal for me. =A0

But now that you have it, and I can imagine how it gives you some
sense of security, can you clue me in on the circumstances and
methodology in which you would use it?
==========
It is now apparent that the trolls have taken over the discussion
using the "yes, but" technique whenever a point is made.

LOL. * I do keep falling for that, *don't I! *It's like herding cats.
No namecalling yet, though.

*Larry Jaques *is probably larfing his arse off about now.

So, civil disagreement is now trolling? Sorry, Don, I'm not going to
go out an get an education in urban warfare tactics just so you can
have a worthy opponent in this discussion. I was interested in your
thoughts on the subject. I now have them. I'm satisfied, and done with
it. But jeeze, no need for you to get all snotty about it.

Sheesh.

He did have a point, r.s. *The thread started as my impressions of a
particular pistol. *There are shooters on this n.g. that might find
that interesting. *You then asked about "circumstances and
methodology", to which I responded. *Then the "yes but" started.
I cited references. *You don't want to read a book and inform yourself
on the subject of self defense (which is very different from urban
warfare) * but you do want to debate and present views based on sparse
and sometimes incorrect information or perceptions. *Perhaps you
shouldn't be amazed if I get *a bit bristly when you start with "could
you clue me in", *"it seems to me" and "it is truely foreign to me"
but then want to debate whether I should be allowed to *possess the
object I reviewed -- while you still don't care to inform yourself on
relevent issues like the very methodology you claimed to inquire
about. *

That lures Wayne out of his off-grid hideout to assert that I am so
irresponsible or inept that my gun will end up in a schoolyard and
that anyone who has a carry permit is a timorous crackpot. *You're not
responsible for what he says but t'was you that took the thread in
that direction. *

Then, when Unka George *suggests that you're trolling and I see humor
in that, *you call me snotty. *

*I thought I was quite patient with you. *

As I was patient with you. And this thread STARTED with the program in
Newark, NJ. And yes, my knowledge is somewhat sparse, but that's a
good thing, as it is based on actual experience and the experiences of
acquaintances. The less experience I have with violence (gun or any
other), the better.

As I said in my first post after you got your new gun, "I hope you
never feel the need to take it out of your pocket." I meant it then,
and I meant it now.

Peace.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:09:51 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The thread started as my impressions of a
particular pistol.

Sure. but it morphed into a discussion of the wisdom of guns for
protection in general.

There are shooters on this n.g. that might find
that interesting. You then asked about "circumstances and
methodology", to which I responded. Then the "yes but" started.
I cited references. You don't want to read a book and inform yourself
on the subject of self defense (which is very different from urban
warfare) but you do want to debate and present views based on sparse
and sometimes incorrect information or perceptions.

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of his points.

Perhaps you
shouldn't be amazed if I get a bit bristly when you start with "could
you clue me in", "it seems to me" and "it is truely foreign to me"
but then want to debate whether I should be allowed to possess the
object I reviewed

I haven't seen anyone debate your right to possess the pistol, just
the wisdom of society in general giving in to their irrational fear.

That lures Wayne out of his off-grid hideout to assert that I am so
irresponsible or inept that my gun will end up in a schoolyard and
that anyone who has a carry permit is a timorous crackpot.

Again, it's a sure sign that you're losing the debate when you need to
put words in others' mouths and misrepresent their position. All I
said about schoolyards is that your gun is more likely to end up in
one than to save your life. You failed to debate that point, because
your case is no different than anyone else's. The fact is that no
matter how responsible you are, there are plenty of circumstances
where that new toy could end up in the wrong place. That doesn't mean
you intended it, but it's predictable nonetheless. I don't believe
that you're willing to debate your responsibility should the worst
happen. I don't see a shred of difference between you and every
fearful soccer mom. Everybody wants their guns, and it's just too damn
bad if that results in a predictable proliferation of cheap guns in
the wrong hands, right?

You're not
responsible for what he says but t'was you that took the thread in
that direction.

Now you're just whining. This is Usenet, and your thread was OT to
begin with.

Then, when Unka George suggests that you're trolling and I see humor
in that, you call me snotty.

He, and you, are only disingenuously yakking about trolls because you
prefer that to serious debate.

I thought I was quite patient with you.

Oh please.

Wayne

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:16:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 26, 3:24*pm, wrote:


It's not the same at all. The risk of a downside for a flu shot is
miniscule. If you're carrying concealed while mugged, the risk of the
mugger getting your gun as well as your wallet might be 50%. Then your
gun is out of your control and you buy another one..

And it might not be 50%. You have your estimate of the risks of
carrying a handgun, but that does not mean it is accurate. I am
pretty sure that the risk depends on the person carrying a concealed
weapon.

Sure it depends. But let's face it, most people vastly overestimate
their ability to think clearly under stress. My guess of 50-50 odds of
losing a gun to a mugger is based on the average case, and the fact
that a lot of the people I know personally who brag about their
alleged prowess are blowhards, as are quite a few like gummer who post
here.

There is a real possibility that carrying a concealed weapon may prove
to be a wise decision.

A possibility for sure. But what are the real odds compared to the
reality of where buying millions of guns for "protection" has gotten
us?

Whether either is worth doing is up to the
individual.

It's clear that we have a problem with too many guns, and with too
many people denying that it's a problem or pretending that it's
somebody else's problem. As I said, it's the same with a host of other
issues.

Still up to the individual. I do not believe that many of us can be
trusted to vote or carry a handgun. But you have to allow people to
make decisions. Unless you know of some more intelligent species that
humans should grant the power of making decisions for them.

If it were as simple as that, then we wouldn't need fishing licences.
:-) Obviously more self-control could have prevented some of our more
embarrassing statistics, as it has in other countries.

Why do you keep trying to say that policemen
should be the only ones allowed to defend themselves?

I said no such thing.

Most policemen
never have to draw their weapons. Just as most people that carry
concealed never have to draw their weapons. But everyone should be
allowed to defend themselves, not just policemen.

They are allowed, and I've never said they aren't or shouldn't be. The
question is whether or not it's wise to add to the proliferation of
guns based mostly on perceived risk, and the answer is obvious to all
but those who can't put their fear into perspective.

As to your suggestion that one should move if living in a high risk
area. But individuals get to choice whether they want to live in a
high risk area or not. Everyone can not live in a below average risk
area.

True, but the problem is that a lot of people who live in a
normal-risk area believe that if they've ever seen a crime, know a
crime victim, or have even seen crime on TV, then they should
"protect" themselves.


I do not think my genuine risk is very high. But I did work with a
guy for a year or so that had committed armed robbery with a
shotgun. And was later killed by the police in an armed conflict.
Very sad.

Does that mean you feel the need to carry, or not? Do you have guns in
your home primarily for "protection"?

Your life may be different, but mine
has been interesting.

There are lots of low-lifes in my area. They're mostly harmless except
to each other, and even then it generally takes some booze to make
them troublesome. A little common sense goes a long way.

Which reminds me... a lot of people are fond of pretending that we can
somehow return to the fictional Mayberry life.

I pretty much live in a Mayberry area now.

Lots of people do, and too many of them keep a gun under their pillow
anyway, while refusing to admit that they're Barney.

Wayne

On Jul 26, 8:26*pm, wrote:

Sure it depends. But let's face it, most people vastly overestimate
their ability to think clearly under stress.

But don't forget the bad guy is also under a lot of stress when he
finds someone has a weapon. He has already shown that he can not think
well when not understress.



Does that mean you feel the need to carry, or not? Do you have guns in
your home primarily for "protection"?

I do not have any gun in my house primarily for protection. In fact
at this time the only gun in my house that I have any ammo for is my
sons .177 pellet gun. I do have a .22 target pistol and some rifles
that need stocks. My choice for home protection is a pump shotgun. In
my opinion they are the only weapon that anyone should consider for
home protection. But do not have one. Have thought about getting a
shotgun for duck hunting. Like I said, I live in Mayberry.

Dan

Wayne

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:21 am, Don Foreman wrote:

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

And with that, this conversation has come completely full circle. The
original post, if you remember was about a program in Newark, NJ to do
just that. Collect the guns off the streets, at a price of $1k each. I
think it's a good idea. You may or may not.

It isn't a good idea, no matter what one thinks of guns and gun control.

The problem is simple economics -- there are at least 100 million old
guns around, guns that cost no more than $100 to buy. With a 90% profit
margin, the supply will be infinite, and Newark will go bankrupt long
before the supply of guns is detectably affected, never mind
significantly.

Joe Gwinn

Not a problem, Joe. With every $1,000 gun bounty in Newark goes a 3- to
5-year minimum prison sentence for the guy who had it. It kind of
discourages gaming the system.

Actually, that's worse -- it make planting evidence profitable. What a
way to eliminate a rival or settle a score.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
rangerssuck wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:21 am, Don Foreman wrote:

Wull yah, and that's good news indeed! We don't need more gun
control legislation, we merely need to collect them from the
schoolyards and atmosphere more often.

And with that, this conversation has come completely full circle. The
original post, if you remember was about a program in Newark, NJ to do
just that. Collect the guns off the streets, at a price of $1k each. I
think it's a good idea. You may or may not.

It isn't a good idea, no matter what one thinks of guns and gun
control.

The problem is simple economics -- there are at least 100 million old
guns around, guns that cost no more than $100 to buy. With a 90%
profit
margin, the supply will be infinite, and Newark will go bankrupt long
before the supply of guns is detectably affected, never mind
significantly.

Joe Gwinn

Not a problem, Joe. With every $1,000 gun bounty in Newark goes a 3- to
5-year minimum prison sentence for the guy who had it. It kind of
discourages gaming the system.

Actually, that's worse -- it make planting evidence profitable. What a
way to eliminate a rival or settle a score.

Joe Gwinn

As I said early in this thread, you shouldn't have any trouble recognizing
it -- unless you're so numb that someone can plant a handgun on you without
your notice. g

I think you can forget the negative scenarios, Joe. They aren't going to
happen. This proposal is pretty straightforward. I doubt if it will do very
much to help, but it might.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote:
On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, wrote:

Sure it depends. But let's face it, most people vastly overestimate
their ability to think clearly under stress.

But don't forget the bad guy is also under a lot of stress when he
finds someone has a weapon. He has already shown that he can not think
well when not understress.

This article cracked me up, factually anyway.
"On the evening of July 25, 2009, Forrest was shot dead during an attempted
carjacking in Atlanta, Georgia. Forrest was shot seven or eight times as he
attempted to stop carjackers from stealing his Jaguar, which had his
girlfriend's son in the backseat."
http://bawaal.com/blog/1221-vernon-forrest-dead

The guy was airing up a tire on his car, an XKE, scared of the two perps
with his gun and then chased after them.
They then turned, drew their weapons and shot him to death.


--
John R. Carroll

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:42:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, wrote:

Sure it depends. But let's face it, most people vastly overestimate
their ability to think clearly under stress.

But don't forget the bad guy is also under a lot of stress when he
finds someone has a weapon. He has already shown that he can not think
well when not understress.

This article cracked me up, factually anyway.
"On the evening of July 25, 2009, Forrest was shot dead during an attempted
carjacking in Atlanta, Georgia. Forrest was shot seven or eight times as he
attempted to stop carjackers from stealing his Jaguar, which had his
girlfriend's son in the backseat."
http://bawaal.com/blog/1221-vernon-forrest-dead

The guy was airing up a tire on his car, an XKE, scared of the two perps
with his gun and then chased after them.
They then turned, drew their weapons and shot him to death.

Forrest screwed up. The minute he started chasing them, he became the
aggressor. He'd have known that if he'd had any training.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:48:20 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Don Foreman wrote:


Wrong. One can constantly be doing threat assessment and barely be
aware of it. We needn't worry about those who aren't out to kill us
but it's useful to become aware sooner than later of those who might.
Watch wildlife, found even in the parks of big cities. Try to catch a
robin or a rabbit in your hands.

I really encourage you to do some reading. You're right in that we
can't maintain maximum "condition red" vigilance at all times. The
key is knowing what and who to pay attention to and scale one's state
of vigilence accordingly.

Today was interesting. I walked out to my car, walking around the rear of it as I
normally do to get into the drivers side. Sat down, turned on the mp3 player, started the
car, put it into reverse and backed up, looking up in rear view mirror.

The look of the woman's horror of seeing my car coming at her car offset my shock to see a
car behind me all of a sudden on my 200ft private drive.

The second shock was a member of a religous sect that thought it was so important for my
soul to block some one they could see was leaving his home so they could hand out their
little tract was standing next to my car door.

In less than 30 seconds someone got inside my zone where I felt perfectly safe. I was a
gentlemen, told the guy I need to be some where, took his tract, and watched him depart.

You accepted his Jesus Freak folder? Whatever _for_, Wes?


I'm more irritated by my lack of awareness than his rudeness in blocking my egress.

Yeah, sudden guests can be _very_ disconcerting. I can just imagine
his reaction if you'd been more suddenly confronted and were carrying.

"Mom, do farts have lumps?"

--
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 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:35:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:32:38 +0100, Mark Rand
wrote:


'Twas a serious thought and is followed by a serious question:-
If a victim is robbed/mugged at gunpoint and offers no resistance, what
are
the probabilities of getting shot/not getting shot?

We don't have the direct experience on this side of the pond to any great
extent, since even ownership of a hand gun can get you five years of free
accommodation at Her Majesties pleasure. Use of it in furtherance of a
crime
gets you a longer holiday away from society.

I can't authoritatively answer that other than that it is considerably
higher than zero. The risk is greatest if the assailant is already a
twice-busted felon because a third conviction could get him life as a
habitual criminal. Therefore, for him anyway, the assault or robbery
carries about the same penalty as homicide and killing any witnesses
may reduce his risk of being caught and convicted.


The data on this point is available. I don't recall it well enough for a
quote, but my recollection is that your chance of being shot if you put up
resistance (including resistance with a gun) is slightly *lower* than if you
put up no resistance.

That's a statistical conclusion and it would be worth investigating it
further. Nevertheless, it's suggestive of the efficacy of being armed in
self-defense.

It's consistent with Ayoob's assertion/observation that predators
seek easy prey. The assailant may disengage, flee and seek easier
prey if credible resistance is presented before any actual crime has
been committed.

FWIW, and to avoid confusing anyone who thinks I'm arguing the opposite,
this has nothing to do with the availability or propensity of criminals to
use a gun. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and the experience of the UK
and most continental European countries contrasts sharply with that of
countries where there are lots of guns available to nearly anyone who isn't
a criminal or insane -- such as the US. (Of course, guns are readily
available here to criminals and to the insane, as well.)

No ****! I watched "60 Minutes" tonight which billed a segment
something like "a sector that is flourishing in a down economy: guns
and reloading" They did touch on the economics a bit (prices are up)
but it was mostly about how easy it is for anyone at all to get guns,
including assault rifles, at gun shows in Virginia with no background
check. One person interviewed said it was as easy as buying a candy
bar. Yikes! That isn't a loophole, that's a gaping gash.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:19:34 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:09:51 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The thread started as my impressions of a
particular pistol.

Sure. but it morphed into a discussion of the wisdom of guns for
protection in general.

There are shooters on this n.g. that might find
that interesting. You then asked about "circumstances and
methodology", to which I responded. Then the "yes but" started.
I cited references. You don't want to read a book and inform yourself
on the subject of self defense (which is very different from urban
warfare) but you do want to debate and present views based on sparse
and sometimes incorrect information or perceptions.

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of his points.

It doesn't represent his points at all, it recounts the process he
used to introduce his opinions.

Again, it's a sure sign that you're losing the debate when you need to
put words in others' mouths and misrepresent their position. All I
said about schoolyards is that your gun is more likely to end up in
one than to save your life.

Yes, that's what you said -- with absolutely no basis of evidence or
supportive logic. The assertion is absurd.

I shared my experience with the Ruger LCP. Others, apparently
including you, want a debate while being uninformed and unwilling to
become informed. That leaves opinion based on what? Fear?

Debate away.

You failed to debate that point, because
your case is no different than anyone else's. The fact is that no
matter how responsible you are, there are plenty of circumstances
where that new toy could end up in the wrong place.

No,there aren't. You know nearly nothing about my experience or
training. I do not regard handguns as toys and I strongly suggest
that you don't either.

I don't see a shred of difference between you and every
fearful soccer mom.

Thank you! The soccer moms I've known have been anything but fearful.
They hang in there and get it done with a smile, make it look easy.
They are winners, not whiners.

He, and you, are only disingenuously yakking about trolls because you
prefer that to serious debate.

Bingo,Wayne, good catch! I WAS NOT LOOKING FOR A GODDAMNED DEBATE.
I shared my experience with and impressions of the (metal) Ruger LCP
for those readers who might be interested.

Beyond that, you have presented no "serious debate", far from it. You
have introduced no factual or logical support for your opinions, some
of which are amusingly absurd. "Guns are like freon..."

Shouting opinions, particularly opinions with absolutely no basis in
fact or logic, is not serious debate.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



As I was patient with you. And this thread STARTED with the program in
Newark, NJ. And yes, my knowledge is somewhat sparse, but that's a
good thing, as it is based on actual experience and the experiences of
acquaintances. The less experience I have with violence (gun or any
other), the better.

As I said in my first post after you got your new gun, "I hope you
never feel the need to take it out of your pocket." I meant it then,
and I meant it now.

Peace.

Thanks and roger that. I also hope I never feel the need to take
it out of my pocket as a defensive measure and I fully expect that
will be the case. I am a veteran and I have done training as a
civilian so I think I can defend myself without presenting a hazard
to y'all.

I'm curious about the pseudonym or net name or whatever ya call it
"rangerssuck". I thought about that while on the trail yesterday.
What rangers suck, pray tell? New York Rangers, Texas Rangers, U.S.
Army Rangers, Ford Rangers, Ranger boats.....? I think I had a
longer list between mile 2 and 3 but that's all I can recall just now.
Short-term memory is not one of my strengths and probably not a growth
opportunity at this point in my life...

I took young neighbor Eric (18) to the range today, with full
approval of his parents of course. He'd expressed interest in
shooting a 1911 (.45) and I have a couple so I'd brought one up
this trip. We went to the casual range behind the ammonia plant over
by Glenwood. He and we had one hell of a good time. He hit a plastic
pop (soda) bottle at 50 feet, not bad at all. I fill them with water
and cap them so they kinda explode when hit well. That's fun at the
range. We had three. I busted one, so did he, don't recall who hit
the third. Doesn't matter, we had a great time.

I couldn't hit **** with the LCP today. Some days are like that. That
long DA trigger wil take some gettin' used to.

It's a rather minimal range, one shooting bench and no target stands
to speak of. OTOH, it's free to those who know about it. We left it
as we found it, no evidence of our visit. Flyover country protocol.

We had to detour thru Glenwood because of the Waterama parade. Folks
leave lawn chairs, quilts, coolers and ah don' know whutall along the
parade route in advance. Nobody will steal them here.

We went 'round that en route to the shooting place, Eric driving lest
Mary wanna go elsewhere in our car while young Eric 'n I were
goofin' off. Hadda go most of the way up the hill, dang near to the
55 highway to get past the several streets where they were staging the
parade.

His dad Dave (diesel mechanic and instructor of same) told me that
Eric was still grinning several hours later.

Eric told a hilarious story about an adventure with Grampa Zip one
night looking for a syringe. (Eric is a diabetic) We're kinda rural
here, Zip drives like a bat outta hell. They finally found one in
Glenwood but then Zip got lost coming back. It's only 8 miles but it
can be a bit confusing at night and Zip just might have had a
skinfull at the time. It happens (!)

There are Zip stories that should be shared with Garrison Keillor.
Tracy (Eric's mom) told us one yesterday that had us gasping helpless
with laughter: the tale of Zip going waterskiing off the dock on
Armistice day wearing a bathrobe and a stocking cap.
Mr. Steinbring, the original builder of our cabin, was driving the
boat. They were all nuts. Tracy is a great storyteller.

Zip still shoots ducks off his dock in autumn.

I like it here!

On Jul 27, 2:42*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck

wrote:

As I was patient with you. And this thread STARTED with the program in
Newark, NJ. And yes, my knowledge is somewhat sparse, but that's a
good thing, as it is based on actual experience and the experiences of
acquaintances. The less experience I have with violence (gun or any
other), the better.

As I said in my first post after you got your new gun, "I hope you
never feel the need to take it out of your pocket." I meant it then,
and I meant it now.

Peace.

Thanks and roger that. * * I also *hope I never feel the need to take
it out of my pocket as a defensive measure *and I fully expect that
will be the case. *I am a veteran and I have done training as a
civilian so I think I *can defend myself without presenting a hazard
to y'all.

*I'm curious about the pseudonym *or net name or whatever ya call it
"rangerssuck". *I thought about that while on *the trail yesterday.
What rangers suck, pray tell? * New York Rangers, *Texas Rangers, U.S..
Army Rangers, *Ford Rangers, Ranger boats.....? *I think I had a
longer list between mile 2 and 3 but that's all I can recall just now.

Ya got it on the first try. New York Rangers most definitely suck. If
you ever get out in this direction during hockey season, I'll take you
to a Devils game (which happen to be played in Newark, where this
whole debacle started), and you can hear 17,000 people say it all at
once. Doesn't matter who the opposing team is, the Devils fans have it
in for the Rangers.

Short-term memory is not one of my strengths and probably not a growth
opportunity at this point in my life...

Welcome to my world. While not quite as old as you, my memory
definitely has taken a beating over the years, most notably in the
last five or so. There's a pretty good book, "Brain Longevity" by
Dharma Singh Khalsa, MD that I'll finish reading some day, if I can
remember. What I have read so far seems pretty solid, with nutritional
advice, exercises and some tips to aid the aging brain.


I took young neighbor Eric (18) *to the range today, with full
approval of his parents of course. *He'd expressed interest in
shooting *a *1911 (.45) and I have a couple *so I'd brought one up
this trip. * We went to the casual range behind the ammonia plant over
by Glenwood. *He and we *had one hell of a good time. He hit a plastic
pop (soda) bottle at 50 feet, not bad at all. *I fill them with water
and cap them so they kinda explode when hit well. *That's fun at the
range. *We had three. *I busted *one, so did he, don't recall who hit
the third. *Doesn't matter, we had a great time.

You ought to fill them with seltzer. I expect that would be way more
satisfying. Check out Richard Kinch's web site for a most excellent
how-to.


I couldn't hit **** with the LCP today. *Some days are like that. That
long DA *trigger wil take some gettin' used to.

Same as getting to Carnegie Hall - Practice.

I'm going to skip commentary on the rest of this except for two items:

1) Eric should really keep supplies on hand. It doesn't take much for
a diabetic to get in serious trouble.

2) It all sounds too idyllic. Wish I was there. Someday (in the next
few years) I plan to move to Vermont, where I'll probably have a few
fun guns of my own, though they'll probably be target rifles, because
that's what *I* like to do.


It's a rather minimal range, one shooting bench and no target stands
to speak of. *OTOH, *it's free to those who know about it. *We left it
as we found it, no evidence of our visit. *Flyover country protocol. *

We had to detour thru Glenwood because of the Waterama parade. *Folks
leave lawn chairs, quilts, coolers and ah don' know whutall along the
parade route in advance. *Nobody will steal them here. *

We went 'round that en route to the shooting place, Eric driving lest
Mary wanna go elsewhere in our car *while young Eric *'n I were
goofin' off. * Hadda go most of the way up the hill, dang near to the
55 highway to get past the several streets where they were staging the
parade. *

His dad Dave (diesel mechanic and instructor of same) *told me that
Eric was still grinning several hours later.

Eric told a hilarious story about an adventure with Grampa Zip one
night looking for a syringe. (Eric is a diabetic) * We're kinda rural
here, Zip drives like a bat outta hell. *They finally found one in
Glenwood but then Zip got lost coming back. It's only *8 miles but it
can be a bit confusing at night and Zip just might have *had a
skinfull *at the time. *It happens (!)

There are Zip stories that should be shared with Garrison Keillor.
Tracy (Eric's mom) told us one yesterday that had us gasping helpless
with laughter: *the tale of Zip *going waterskiing off the dock on
Armistice day * wearing a bathrobe and a stocking cap. *
Mr. Steinbring, the original builder of our cabin, was driving the
boat. *They were all nuts. *Tracy is a great storyteller. *

Zip still shoots ducks off his dock in autumn. *

I like it here! *

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

wrote:
On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, wrote:

Sure it depends. But let's face it, most people vastly overestimate
their ability to think clearly under stress.

But don't forget the bad guy is also under a lot of stress when he
finds someone has a weapon. He has already shown that he can not think
well when not understress.

This article cracked me up, factually anyway.
"On the evening of July 25, 2009, Forrest was shot dead during an attempted
carjacking in Atlanta, Georgia. Forrest was shot seven or eight times as he
attempted to stop carjackers from stealing his Jaguar, which had his
girlfriend's son in the backseat."
http://bawaal.com/blog/1221-vernon-forrest-dead

The guy was airing up a tire on his car, an XKE, scared of the two perps
with his gun and then chased after them.
They then turned, drew their weapons and shot him to death.

If that's an accurate portrayal of the sequence of events, Forrest first
successfully defended himself then committed suicide. Real smart fella
that Forrest was.