In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"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

It has been done, Ed. The classic way was to sneak the contraband into
a backpack or vehicle.


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.

In the 1970s, I lived in Washington, DC. The young couple in the
apartment below me were both lawyers working at the Dept of Justice,
they being on their way to becoming prosecutors. I borrowed and read
their textbook on Criminology. One factoid that has stuck with me for
all these years is that 5% of felony accusations are knowingly false. A
major part of the job of prosecutor is to not be misled, to avoid being
used.

Joe Gwinn

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

"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

It has been done, Ed. The classic way was to sneak the contraband into
a backpack or vehicle.

Let's explain something about Newark: The kind of people who the police are
after, the ones who are carrying illegal guns, are not carrying backpacks.
g

This is about gang-bangers on the street, Joe. The beat cops already know,
in most cases, who they're after. They need a justification to pat them
down.

Don't worry, law-abiding CCW-holding residents of Newark won't be
inconvenienced. All three or four of them are safe. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:29:23 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.


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

But what you wrote about what I said about schoolyards, and what I
actually said, are two entirely different things. That's a fact, and
anyone who can read English can verify it by reading the material.

-- with absolutely no basis of evidence or
supportive logic. The assertion is absurd.

What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *everyone* like you
who buys a carry-piece because they feel vulnerable, insists that they
too are responsible. The level of genuine responsibility varies, but
the fact is that a whole lot of those guns end up far from where they
were originally intended to be. Since you won't acknowledge that
problem, I don't see how you're any different from all the others.
You're carrying because of an over-reaction to your fear. That fear
will probably increase as you get older, and your ability to act
responsibly will probably decrease. But your right to carry, and most
likely your insistence on carrying, will remain. Sort of like the old
fart who can no longer turn his head, but backs up blindly out of his
tree-lined driveway thinking "I'm old, and I'm coming out!". Now, I
already know that you'll respond by saying "I'll quit carrying/driving
when I judge myself incapable". And it's certainly possible that
you'll be the exception. But at this point, you won't even acknowledge
that there's a problem with too many guns, so I don't rate your
critical thinking very highly now, and I doubt that it will get better
with time.

I shared my experience with the Ruger LCP. Others, apparently
including you, want a debate while being uninformed and unwilling to
become informed.

Uninformed about what? That you're "special", and your needs and
capabilities are above average, and therefore you aren't like all the
other millions who give in to their fear resulting in a flood of guns?
That leaves opinion based on what? Fear?

LOL I'm not the guy who needs to carry to go on a walk, and that
includes a trip to Oakland a few weeks ago.

Debate away.

It's not a debate, because you aren't willing to admit that there's
anything to debate. You wanted the gun, you bought it, and if there's
any downside then you want to talk around the issue, right?

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.

Baloney. You can do a lot to cut down the odds of the gun getting out
of your hands, but there's no way you can be sure it will never
happen. To name just one example - you could have a heart attack on a
walk, and the first guy on the scene might pocket your popper. After
all, there are scary people along your route, otherwise you wouldn't
have thought of carrying in the first place, right?

You know nearly nothing about my experience or
training.

Your experience and training won't matter a whit if somebody gets the
drop on you and takes your piece. Neither will it matter if somebody
burgles your place and steals the guns. Besides, the more of your
posts I read, the more I believe that you have more fear than you're
letting on, which increases the odds that you'll get sloppy.

I do not regard handguns as toys and I strongly suggest
that you don't either.

Your pocket popper is a toy in that the need for it probably only
exists in your mind. And you're treating it like a toy in that you
don't want to admit any possibility that your piece might join
millions of others in ending up somewhere other than where the owners
intended.

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.

Sheesh. Well heck, if even the soccer moms are fearless, then where
are all these guns coming from, and who is it that's buying them? Let
me guess - we're all winners with no fear but it's just a fluke that
we buy millions of guns just in case, and so long as we proclaim that
we understand that they're not toys we can ignore the statistics and
then everything's OK?

They hang in there and get it done with a smile, make it look easy.
They are winners, not whiners.

Nobody said that soccer moms were whiners. I said that you were
whining about trolls and your thread going in a direction you didn't
ask for.

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.

Yes, I know what you wanted - to start an off-topic discussion about
your new popper in a forum where you figured everybody would tell you
what you want to hear. Nevertheless, you seem to have lots of time to
argue, but none to 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..."

As I said before, I thought you were smart enough to grasp a simple
metaphor. I don't see how it helps you to repeatedly pretend that you
didn't get my point.

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

I agree, but you're talking about yourself there, and you know it.

Wayne

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
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.

That's true, and the way private sales are handled in most states is
similarly nuts. That is, it's nuts given that we have a background check
system for retail sales and we're supposed to believe that it means
something.

However, it's not that simple. The gun show situation is not what it appears
to be, in terms of its relationship to crime. Based on a survey of inmates
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7% of the guns used in crimes
appeared to come from gun shows. That was in 1997; there apparently has not
been an update of that data. Friends and family (40%) and street/illegal
buys (40%) are the major sources. A high percentage appear to come from
straw purchases and that would be extremely difficult to stamp out with gun
control laws. Thefts apparently are a very minor source. This agrees with
some FBI data I saw a few years ago that indicates the average age of a gun
used in a crime is around 3-1/2 years. I'm jealous. None of my guns are that
new. d8-)

Here's the rest of that gun-source data to chew on, if you're interested:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:29:23 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.


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

But what you wrote about what I said about schoolyards, and what I
actually said, are two entirely different things. That's a fact, and
anyone who can read English can verify it by reading the material.

-- with absolutely no basis of evidence or
supportive logic. The assertion is absurd.

What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *everyone* like you
who buys a carry-piece because they feel vulnerable, insists that they
too are responsible. The level of genuine responsibility varies, but
the fact is that a whole lot of those guns end up far from where they
were originally intended to be.

I don't think that's true. Most guns used in crimes come from straw
purchases, not from thefts or other transfer of once-legal guns.

Although there is no reliable data on the number of guns lost or stolen,
there is fairly good data on sources of guns used in crimes. This doesn't
directly show the percentage that were stolen but there is anecdotal info
from BATF that suggests the same thing -- that most guns used in crimes
found their way fairly directly from retail sale to crime, without any theft
or loss involved:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

snip

--
Ed Huntress

Don Foreman wrote:
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.

You do realize that 60 minutes has the same credibility as Spongebob
Squarepants, right?

I go to gunshows regularly here in Texas. They are all crawling with
uniformed LEOs and plainsclothes LEOs of indeterminant stripe, just
hoping some private seller will sell a firearm to one of the few
gang-banger types that sometimes are present. I have yet to see or hear
of any arrests at or near a gunshow resulting from selling a firearm to
an inelligible buyer. And you know if it happens at all it would be
headline news in every major paper.
Fact is, 80% of the sellers in a gunshow are FFLs. They probably
account for 95% of the firearms for sale. Buying a firearm without
filling out a 4473 at a gunshow is a low-percentage pursuit. But even
then, the private sellers are careful. Most ask for a Texas CHL.
It is much easier to buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction
resulting from an online ad. And most people still take the same
precautions about who they sell to. You can get a feel about who is
responding to your ad before the conversation advances very far.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:07:02 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



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.

I really like watching good hockey. Went to Michigan Tech many years
ago, where hockey is probably as important as engineering or
technology.


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've made some Kinchesque bottlecaps-mit-Schraeder valves long before
I knew about Richard's similar adventures.

I don't think seltzer would make much difference. The hydrostatic
shock of the bullet's impact makes the bottle kinda explode.


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.

Yup. Time enjoyably spent. .380 ammo and brass are about impossible
to find right now but I'm hoping that situation will eventually
improve. Wayne was right that some "gun nuts" do seem to be easily
spooked. Since the election there has been hoarding to such extremes
that ammo and reloading supplies are very difficult to find at any
price. A big store in St. Cloud got a shipment of 100K primers one
day, sold them all within 4 hours.

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

I'm sure they know that. Eric's mom and gramma are RN's. It's easy
to forget stuff when going to grampa's cabin.

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.

Yeah, that' s fun. A very good friend of mine in PA is getting into
fitting, chambering, crowning and bedding rifle barrels. That's
high-precision metalworking. He's after one-hole five-shot groups
at 100 yards. We're going to visit with them this autumn and I'm
hoping to shoot one of his rifles.

I have a couple of decent rifles, a .223 sporter and a .22-250
varminter. Just factory, but they're good enough for me. They
shoot 0.5 to 0.75 minutes of arc if I feed them ammo they like.

That's where I started with the soda bottles. When a 55-grain
ballistic-tip bullet clocking along at most of 4000 fps hits a
water-filled and capped bottle, the target about vaporizes.

Vermont! That's rather different from New Jersey, right? Anyone over
21 can carry in Vermont, no permit required. Wonder how many
actually do. Probably very few.

You are entitled to your opinions, Wayne. You do seem to have some
strong opinions!

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:33:40 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

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.

You bet, Don. I laugh whenever someone answers messages signed by the
likes of "rangerssuck", or someone else with a nom de plume of such
eloquent and weighty status. sigh

Hint: If you stop responding to them, maybe they'll go away. When I
got back from vacation, there were 1246 messages stacked up. After my
filters were done, I was presented with 285. Troll filters work well,
but I still hit the Ignore key for about half of those.

On a much nicer note, I had the privilege of meeting swarfrat Jon
Anderson at his Grass Valley home while on vacation. I came home with
hydraulic cylinder repair kits, some metalworking books, some other
metal bits, and a sweet 6" reflector telescope that stands damnear 5'
tall. (Thanks again, Jon. Your shirt is in the mail today, Monday.)

--
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, 27 Jul 2009 11:56:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


That isn't a loophole, that's a gaping gash.

That's true, and the way private sales are handled in most states is
similarly nuts. That is, it's nuts given that we have a background check
system for retail sales and we're supposed to believe that it means
something.

However, it's not that simple. The gun show situation is not what it appears
to be, in terms of its relationship to crime. Based on a survey of inmates
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7% of the guns used in crimes
appeared to come from gun shows. That was in 1997; there apparently has not
been an update of that data. Friends and family (40%) and street/illegal
buys (40%) are the major sources.

Where do those sold on the street come from? Straw purchases? Is
that the rationale behind the one gun per month per buyer concept? If
so, it makes sense. Wouldn't cure but might help.

A high percentage appear to come from
straw purchases and that would be extremely difficult to stamp out with gun
control laws. Thefts apparently are a very minor source. This agrees with
some FBI data I saw a few years ago that indicates the average age of a gun
used in a crime is around 3-1/2 years. I'm jealous. None of my guns are that
new. d8-)

Interesting stat. I suppose if a gun is actually fired during
criminal activity it would be a good idea to ditch it forthwith.

Here's the rest of that gun-source data to chew on, if you're interested:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Later,when I'm back in wideband land. G

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:15:24 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:



You do realize that 60 minutes has the same credibility as Spongebob
Squarepants, right?

Probably less. Spongebob doesn't have an agenda. Still, I doubt that
they falsely asserted that background checks are not done at gunshows
in VA. Balanced reporting would perhaps also show how things are
done in other more responsible states.

I go to gunshows regularly here in Texas. They are all crawling with
uniformed LEOs and plainsclothes LEOs of indeterminant stripe, just
hoping some private seller will sell a firearm to one of the few
gang-banger types that sometimes are present. I have yet to see or hear
of any arrests at or near a gunshow resulting from selling a firearm to
an inelligible buyer. And you know if it happens at all it would be
headline news in every major paper.
Fact is, 80% of the sellers in a gunshow are FFLs. They probably
account for 95% of the firearms for sale. Buying a firearm without
filling out a 4473 at a gunshow is a low-percentage pursuit. But even
then, the private sellers are careful. Most ask for a Texas CHL.
It is much easier to buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction
resulting from an online ad. And most people still take the same
precautions about who they sell to. You can get a feel about who is
responding to your ad before the conversation advances very far.

In MN one must present a purchase permit or CCW to buy a gun,
including at a gun show. Getting either permit requires an FBI
background check.

Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:15:24 -0500, RBnDFW
wrote:


You do realize that 60 minutes has the same credibility as Spongebob
Squarepants, right?

Probably less. Spongebob doesn't have an agenda. Still, I doubt that
they falsely asserted that background checks are not done at gunshows
in VA.

I can't speak for VA, but I doubt the gun shows there are much different
from those here, where the NICS check probably is done on close to 90&
of gun show firearms sales.

Balanced reporting would perhaps also show how things are
done in other more responsible states.

If there were such a thing, we would not see it on ABC

I go to gunshows regularly here in Texas. They are all crawling with
uniformed LEOs and plainsclothes LEOs of indeterminant stripe, just
hoping some private seller will sell a firearm to one of the few
gang-banger types that sometimes are present. I have yet to see or hear
of any arrests at or near a gunshow resulting from selling a firearm to
an inelligible buyer. And you know if it happens at all it would be
headline news in every major paper.
Fact is, 80% of the sellers in a gunshow are FFLs. They probably
account for 95% of the firearms for sale. Buying a firearm without
filling out a 4473 at a gunshow is a low-percentage pursuit. But even
then, the private sellers are careful. Most ask for a Texas CHL.
It is much easier to buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction
resulting from an online ad. And most people still take the same
precautions about who they sell to. You can get a feel about who is
responding to your ad before the conversation advances very far.

In MN one must present a purchase permit or CCW to buy a gun,
including at a gun show. Getting either permit requires an FBI
background check.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:56:43 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


That isn't a loophole, that's a gaping gash.

That's true, and the way private sales are handled in most states is
similarly nuts. That is, it's nuts given that we have a background check
system for retail sales and we're supposed to believe that it means
something.

However, it's not that simple. The gun show situation is not what it
appears
to be, in terms of its relationship to crime. Based on a survey of inmates
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 0.7% of the guns used in crimes
appeared to come from gun shows. That was in 1997; there apparently has
not
been an update of that data. Friends and family (40%) and street/illegal
buys (40%) are the major sources.

Where do those sold on the street come from? Straw purchases?

Yeah. Here in NJ, and particularly in NYC, they find that a lot of guns are
bought in bunches by straw purchasers in VA and GA. The New Jersey Turnpike
is a drug- and gun-running route these days. That's how our state police got
into trouble for racial profiling a few years back. They were looking for
young black men in twos and threes, in rented cars from out of state. It was
like shooting fish in a barrel.

Is
that the rationale behind the one gun per month per buyer concept?

Yes.

If so, it makes sense. Wouldn't cure but might help.

It would if they'd enact it in VA and GA. g

We really don't have much of a sourcing problem here in NJ. The law is just
an expression of frustration. Since it's extremely difficult to buy handguns
in any quantity in NJ anyway, the effect of the law will be zilch.

When my uncle died I had to transfer five of his handguns to me.
Lemmetellau, I had to jump through hoops -- fingerprinting, an FBI check, a
nuthouse check, and a couple of people to testify that I'm not nuts or a
crook. If you just went out and tried to buy a bunch of handguns on your
own, they'd flag you like a runaway train. It's the local cops who are in
charge of all of this stuff. (FWIW, I think that the final version of the
new law allows for multiple transfers in a month to settle an estate.)


A high percentage appear to come from
straw purchases and that would be extremely difficult to stamp out with
gun
control laws. Thefts apparently are a very minor source. This agrees with
some FBI data I saw a few years ago that indicates the average age of a
gun
used in a crime is around 3-1/2 years. I'm jealous. None of my guns are
that
new. d8-)

Interesting stat. I suppose if a gun is actually fired during
criminal activity it would be a good idea to ditch it forthwith.

Here's the rest of that gun-source data to chew on, if you're interested:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Later,when I'm back in wideband land. G

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:42:09 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

I wasn't aware that my true colors were ever hidden. I am, though a
former NRA member and former avid target shooter (targets with round
bullseyes, not human silhouettes), most certainly of the opinion that
people carrying guns in urban or suburban areas is a recipe for
disaster. I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a gun
been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death.

You've got a lot of company:

What Dictators/Mass Murderers had to say about Gun Control

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own
fall." -
Adolf Hitler

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them
of their arms."
- Aristotle, Politics Ch 10 para 4.

"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler

"If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to
disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse-tung

"Only the police and Military should be allowed to have guns."
- Stalin Rock (Canadian Justice Minister)

"Gun registration is not enough"
-Attorney Generral Janet Reno--12-10-93--Associated Press

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The
prohibition of private firearms is the goal"
-Attorney Generral Janet Reno
-----------------------------
-- http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=Gun_Control

Thanks!
Rich

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.


And never would have escalated to that point if your victim had been
armed.

An armed society is a polite society.

And the wacko lunatics who are addicted to violence would pretty much
Darwinize each other in a short period of time.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:33:55 -0500, Don Foreman wrote:

Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the
government. It is not. The police have no obligation to "protect and
serve". Such an obligation would be impossible to meet because they
can't be everywhere at once.

I once had a neighbor who had grown up in Hitler's Germany. All the
streets were safe, because there were storm troopers everywhere. She
said, "You didn't have to lock your door!"

We all know how that gun control experiment turned out.

Thanks,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
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.


And never would have escalated to that point if your victim had been
armed.

An armed society is a polite society.

There is something about knowing that you have the ultimate end to the
dispute ready at hand, that helps you resist the temptation to rise to
every insult.

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.

You wanna mess with a running chainsaw, just mess with one of the kids of
one of those soccer moms.

Steve

On Jul 27, 4:25*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:42:09 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

I wasn't aware that my true colors were ever hidden. I am, though a
former NRA member and former avid target shooter (targets with round
bullseyes, not human silhouettes), most certainly of the opinion that
people carrying guns in urban or suburban areas is a recipe for
disaster. I, personally, have seen plenty of situations where, had a gun
been present, the argument could easily have escalated to a death.

You've got a lot of company:

What Dictators/Mass Murderers had to say about Gun Control

*"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
*subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who
*have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own
*fall." -
Adolf Hitler

*"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them
*of their arms."
- Aristotle, Politics Ch 10 para 4.

*"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has
*full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
*efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!"
- Adolf Hitler

*"If the opposition (citizen) disarms, well and good. If it refuses to
*disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
- Josef Stalin

*"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
- Mao Tse-tung

*"Only the police and Military should be allowed to have guns."
- Stalin Rock (Canadian Justice Minister)

*"Gun registration is not enough"
-Attorney Generral Janet Reno--12-10-93--Associated Press

*"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The
*prohibition of private firearms is the goal"
-Attorney Generral Janet Reno
-----------------------------
* -- *http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=Gun_Control

Thanks!
Rich

Janet Reno being compared to Stalin and Hitler. Well, Richard, you
truly are an ass.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:33:40 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

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.

You bet, Don. I laugh whenever someone answers messages signed by the
likes of "rangerssuck", or someone else with a nom de plume of such
eloquent and weighty status. sigh

Hint: If you stop responding to them, maybe they'll go away.

FWIW, Rangerssuck (I agree, BTW, living in Devils country g) is mostly
right, factually. Where he gets into disagreement, and on thin ice, is in
drawing conclusions about motivations and psychology. Even there, his
conclusions contain more than a grain of truth.

I'll bet Mark is shaking his head over this conversation. Ranger's views are
closer to those of most Europeans -- maybe halfway between them and
traditional American views -- who have been highly successful in reducing
gun violence to a cipher, compared to that in the US. If you discount those
views out-of-hand (which, it should be clarified, Don does not do) then
you're simply blinding yourself to a lot of significant facts.

As someone who has lived most of his life in a state with very strict gun
laws and fairly low gun-ownership rates (NJ: born here, and 47 years), as
well as some areas with very high gun ownership rates (western MD and
northeast PA, as well as MI; 14 years), I find the arguments amusing. The
real difference in perception is a result of social attitudes, not of facts.
But everyone tosses half-assed facts back and forth at each other, until the
noise is deafening.

For example, the states with the two lowest gun-crime rates are Hawaii and
Vermont: the strictest gun controls in the country in one case, and the most
lax in the other. But the highest rates are in states with high rates of gun
ownership and a fairly strong gun culture. If you look at all states:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...e-gun-violence

....you see some patterns, but they have only an uneven correspondence to
levels of gun control or gun ownership. I've seen correlation coefficients
that indicate a high rate of gun crime to rates of gun ownership and/or lax
gun control, and I don't doubt the statistic. But I don't think it tells us
very much in itself. Population density and a variety of demographics show
strong CCs as well, but they aren't uniform, either.

The thing that amuses me, and that seems to perplex Ranger, is the way gun
issues here almost always wind up focusing on only one of the four main
areas of firearms interests (hunting; target shooting; collecting; and
people-shooting). It almost *always* gets down to people-shooting: handguns,
carrying, combat practice, terminal ballistics, and crime statistics. I'll
bet there are other people here over 60, like me, who were brought up with
guns and who did some kind of shooting virtually every week growing up --
closer to every day, in my case -- who feel like they've walked into a nest
of paranoids...paranoids with guns.

Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.

I've noticed a strong shift in the US gun culture over the years, including
a span of years in which I shot in DCM and was a certified rifle instructor
and an unpaid, volunteer pro-gun activist in NJ. It appears to me we see the
shift reflected here, in the nature of the gun discussions. When I was a kid
the big questions were about the merits of a .308 Winchester versus a
..30/06, or a .22 K-Hornet versus a .218 Bee, since we were nuts for wildcat
varmint guns. We shared our stocks of British-made frangible wads for 20-ga.
roll-crimp shells. A typical discussion was not about the stopping power of
a .40 S&W versus a .45 ACP, but how to reduce lock times in my buddy's
Arisaka that had been converted to 6mm Remington, or whether those new
plastic shot collars helped or hurt when you were shooting pheasants over
dogs. We read everything we could get about fiberglass bedding and laminated
stocks. We were a lot like the kids who were into hotrods, only we got to
shoot, and they didn't yet get to drive.

We saw ourselves as "American riflemen," even as 12-year-olds. And adults
had the same interests. That's how we got our hands on things like converted
Arisakas. g That was gun culture and gun ownership. The NRA's _American
Rifleman_ was all about that kind of shooting. We all belonged, mostly to
get deals on shooting stuff and to participate in the Sharpshooter medal
series. I had eight bars and a BSA Marksmanship Merit Badge.

I'm sure it was similar in many other places. I can't really track what
happened to bring defensive (or offensive?) handguns to the forefront. I
look at my issues of _American Rifleman_ now and they look like stage-prop
catalogs for a snuff film. Guns for killing people, and political diatribes
and demonizing, are the whole point of that magazine now. That and black
rifles, which can be interesting, but these aren't sporterized military
rifles with set triggers and inletted stocks. I don't really need a flash
suppressor or taped-together magazines, thanks, and why are there so many of
them? We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.

And what the hell am I going to do with a laser-sighted semiautomatic
rifle...in the little .223 caliber, of all things? Are we getting into
action-shooting of groundhogs at night, like whack-a-mole in the dark, with
jacketed bullets? Or is it really all about fantasies of shooting illegal
Mexicans as they crawl out of the Rio Grande by the light of the moon?

Not to speak for him, but my guess is that Ranger is tuned into the
nuttiness of a lot of today's gun culture, and I must admit, as a life-long
gun owner and supporter of the right to self-defense, that he has a point.
It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods, and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world. Slightly less whacky,
but still evidence of a need for emotional support, is the endless combing
of the news for evidence -- no matter how remote and equivocal -- that it's
a good idea to carry heavy firepower into church or your neighborhood
barbeque.

When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:14:32 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:29:23 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.


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

But what you wrote about what I said about schoolyards, and what I
actually said, are two entirely different things. That's a fact, and
anyone who can read English can verify it by reading the material.

-- with absolutely no basis of evidence or
supportive logic. The assertion is absurd.

What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *everyone* like you
who buys a carry-piece because they feel vulnerable, insists that they
too are responsible. The level of genuine responsibility varies, but
the fact is that a whole lot of those guns end up far from where they
were originally intended to be.

I don't think that's true. Most guns used in crimes come from straw
purchases, not from thefts or other transfer of once-legal guns.

Where did you find that data point, Ed?


Although there is no reliable data on the number of guns lost or stolen,
there is fairly good data on sources of guns used in crimes. This doesn't
directly show the percentage that were stolen but there is anecdotal info
from BATF that suggests the same thing -- that most guns used in crimes
found their way fairly directly from retail sale to crime, without any theft
or loss involved:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

From page 1 of that:
"In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought
their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail
store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an
illegal source." Page 15 details it.

What part of that doc makes you state the "fairly directly from retail
sale to crime"? ~80% is indirect from my reading of the article.
What's your definition of "straw purchases"? I don't follow.

(wmbjk is in my filters, btw.)

--
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 Jul 27, 5:36*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...



On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:33:40 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

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.

You bet, Don. I laugh whenever someone answers messages signed by the
likes of "rangerssuck", or someone else with a nom de plume of such
eloquent and weighty status. sigh

Hint: If you stop responding to them, maybe they'll go away.

FWIW, Rangerssuck (I agree, BTW, living in Devils country g) is mostly
right, factually. Where he gets into disagreement, and on thin ice, is in
drawing conclusions about motivations and psychology. Even there, his
conclusions contain more than a grain of truth.

I'll bet Mark is shaking his head over this conversation. Ranger's views are
closer to those of most Europeans -- maybe halfway between them and
traditional American views -- who have been highly successful in reducing
gun violence to a cipher, compared to that in the US. If you discount those
views out-of-hand (which, it should be clarified, Don does not do) then
you're simply blinding yourself to a lot of significant facts.

As someone who has lived most of his life in a state with very strict gun
laws and fairly low gun-ownership rates (NJ: born here, and 47 years), as
well as some areas with very high gun ownership rates (western MD and
northeast PA, as well as MI; 14 years), I find the arguments amusing. The
real difference in perception is a result of social attitudes, not of facts.
But everyone tosses half-assed facts back and forth at each other, until the
noise is deafening.

For example, the states with the two lowest gun-crime rates are Hawaii and
Vermont: the strictest gun controls in the country in one case, and the most
lax in the other. But the highest rates are in states with high rates of gun
ownership and a fairly strong gun culture. If you look at all states:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...e-gun-violence

...you see some patterns, but they have only an uneven correspondence to
levels of gun control or gun ownership. I've seen correlation coefficients
that indicate a high rate of gun crime to rates of gun ownership and/or lax
gun control, and I don't doubt the statistic. But I don't think it tells us
very much in itself. Population density and a variety of demographics show
strong CCs as well, but they aren't uniform, either.

The thing that amuses me, and that seems to perplex Ranger, is the way gun
issues here almost always wind up focusing on only one of the four main
areas of firearms interests (hunting; target shooting; collecting; and
people-shooting). It almost *always* gets down to people-shooting: handguns,
carrying, combat practice, terminal ballistics, and crime statistics. I'll
bet there are other people here over 60, like me, who were brought up with
guns and who did some kind of shooting virtually every week growing up -- *
closer to every day, in my case -- who feel like they've walked into a nest
of paranoids...paranoids with guns.

Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.

I've noticed a strong shift in the US gun culture over the years, including
a span of years in which I shot in DCM and was a certified rifle instructor
and an unpaid, volunteer pro-gun activist in NJ. It appears to me we see the
shift reflected here, in the nature of the gun discussions. When I was a kid
the big questions were about the merits of a .308 Winchester versus a
.30/06, or a .22 K-Hornet versus a .218 Bee, since we were nuts for wildcat
varmint guns. We shared our stocks of British-made frangible wads for 20-ga.
roll-crimp shells. A typical discussion was not about the stopping power of
a .40 S&W versus a .45 ACP, but how to reduce lock times in my buddy's
Arisaka that had been converted to 6mm Remington, or whether those new
plastic shot collars helped or hurt when you were shooting pheasants over
dogs. We read everything we could get about fiberglass bedding and laminated
stocks. We were a lot like the kids who were into hotrods, only we got to
shoot, and they didn't yet get to drive.

We saw ourselves as "American riflemen," even as 12-year-olds. And adults
had the same interests. That's how we got our hands on things like converted
Arisakas. g That was gun culture and gun ownership. The NRA's _American
Rifleman_ was all about that kind of shooting. We all belonged, mostly to
get deals on shooting stuff and to participate in the Sharpshooter medal
series. I had eight bars and a BSA Marksmanship Merit Badge.

I'm sure it was similar in many other places. I can't really track what
happened to bring defensive (or offensive?) handguns to the forefront. I
look at my issues of _American Rifleman_ now and they look like stage-prop
catalogs for a snuff film. Guns for killing people, and political diatribes
and demonizing, are the whole point of that magazine now. That and black
rifles, which can be interesting, but these aren't sporterized military
rifles with set triggers and inletted stocks. I don't really need a flash
suppressor or taped-together magazines, thanks, and why are there so many of
them? We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.

And what the hell am I going to do with a laser-sighted semiautomatic
rifle...in the little .223 caliber, of all things? Are we getting into
action-shooting of groundhogs at night, like whack-a-mole in the dark, with
jacketed bullets? Or is it really all about fantasies of shooting illegal
Mexicans as they crawl out of the Rio Grande by the light of the moon?

Not to speak for him, but my guess is that Ranger is tuned into the
nuttiness of a lot of today's gun culture, and I must admit, as a life-long
gun owner and supporter of the right to self-defense, that he has a point..
It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods, and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world. Slightly less whacky,
but still evidence of a need for emotional support, is the endless combing
of the news for evidence -- no matter how remote and equivocal -- that it's
a good idea to carry heavy firepower into church or your neighborhood
barbeque.

When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed - That was an excellent assessment of what I thought I was writing.
Thank you for clarifying it.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:14:32 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:29:23 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.


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

But what you wrote about what I said about schoolyards, and what I
actually said, are two entirely different things. That's a fact, and
anyone who can read English can verify it by reading the material.

-- with absolutely no basis of evidence or
supportive logic. The assertion is absurd.

What you continually fail to acknowledge is that *everyone* like you
who buys a carry-piece because they feel vulnerable, insists that they
too are responsible. The level of genuine responsibility varies, but
the fact is that a whole lot of those guns end up far from where they
were originally intended to be.

I don't think that's true. Most guns used in crimes come from straw
purchases, not from thefts or other transfer of once-legal guns.

Where did you find that data point, Ed?

See below.



Although there is no reliable data on the number of guns lost or stolen,
there is fairly good data on sources of guns used in crimes. This doesn't
directly show the percentage that were stolen but there is anecdotal info
from BATF that suggests the same thing -- that most guns used in crimes
found their way fairly directly from retail sale to crime, without any
theft
or loss involved:

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

From page 1 of that:
"In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought
their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail
store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an
illegal source." Page 15 details it.

? Page 15 in my copy has nothing to do with it. What you want to look at is
the table next to the summary you were looking at on Page 1.


What part of that doc makes you state the "fairly directly from retail
sale to crime"? ~80% is indirect from my reading of the article.
What's your definition of "straw purchases"? I don't follow.

(wmbjk is in my filters, btw.)

Straw purchases are purchases by friends or family (girlfriends and wives
are prominent), and by purchases made by legal purchasers who then sell to
an illegal street vendor. Added to the retail sales and direct sales, sales
at flea markets, and sales at pawn shops, those straw- and direct purchases
add up to a lot of the guns that wind up in illegal circulation.

Then you add in the other street sources, which often are guns that were
purchased legally and then found their way into the used, illegal market.
They can be resold several times. In the end, the number that are originally
the result of a loss or theft turns out to be pretty small.

This data is unpublished, but ATF has it. It's shown up in the press from
time to time. I had a good report on it back in the '90s but I don't have it
now. You can file a FOIA and get it. All you need is a lawyer and a lot of
patience. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:05:29 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

Janet Reno being compared to Stalin and Hitler. Well, Richard, you
truly are an ass.

Maybe, but you're appearing to be quite a hoplophobe.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:17:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

When my uncle died I had to transfer five of his handguns to me.
Lemmetellau, I had to jump through hoops -- fingerprinting, an FBI check, a
nuthouse check, and a couple of people to testify that I'm not nuts or a
crook.

What would have happened if you simply hadn't brought them to the
attention of the confiscators?

Thanks,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:33:55 -0500, Don Foreman wrote:
Many want to believe that their safety is the responsibility of the
government. It is not. The police have no obligation to "protect and
serve". Such an obligation would be impossible to meet because they
can't be everywhere at once.

I once had a neighbor who had grown up in Hitler's Germany. All the
streets were safe, because there were storm troopers everywhere. She
said, "You didn't have to lock your door!"

We all know how that gun control experiment turned out.

My sister lived in Madrid when Franco was still in power. She said
when she was on the street, she was never out of sight of someone in
uniform. In company, even among close friends, acceptable topics were
sports, weather and popular music. You never knew who might be
listening. Gun ownership was only for the approved, Royalists need not
apply.

David

On Jul 27, 7:43*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:05:29 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

Janet Reno being compared to Stalin and Hitler. Well, Richard, you
truly are an ass.

Maybe, but you're appearing to be quite a hoplophobe.

Thanks,
Rich

No, I'm not afraid of firearms (unless they are pointed at me), but I
don't believe they have a place in polite society. I am way more
afraid of the gun owners than of the guns themselves.

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:17:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

When my uncle died I had to transfer five of his handguns to me.
Lemmetellau, I had to jump through hoops -- fingerprinting, an FBI check,
a
nuthouse check, and a couple of people to testify that I'm not nuts or a
crook.

What would have happened if you simply hadn't brought them to the
attention of the confiscators?

Thanks,
Rich

In fact, the law in NJ says that I don't (or didn't) need a purchase permit
to obtain them from an estate. I already had gone through the basic firearm
purchase-permit process so I was a qualified purchaser/recipient. And,
technically, there is no gun "registration" in NJ.

But my lawyer suggested strongly that I would be well-advised to go through
the purchase-permit process, to minimize liability if any of them were
stolen and then turned up later in a crime. And there was the chance that
one or more may have already been illegal, or "troubled." All of them were
obtained before 1960, so there was no assurance that one of them didn't have
a sordid history before my uncle picked them up. I was particularly
concerned about a Colt revolver that a neighbor had given to him before the
neighbor passed away.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 27, 10:36*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




...you see some patterns, but they have only an uneven correspondence to
levels of gun control or gun ownership. I've seen correlation coefficients
that indicate a high rate of gun crime to rates of gun ownership and/or lax
gun control, and I don't doubt the statistic. But I don't think it tells us
very much in itself. Population density and a variety of demographics show
strong CCs as well, but they aren't uniform, either.


I also doubt that the correlation between high rates of violent crime
and gun ownership mean anything. Looking at the internet site you
posted, Louisiana has a high rate of violent crime, but it used to be
a state that did not issue permits to carry concealed. You could
carry a gun, but not concealed. And if you look at the requirements
to get a CCW in Louisiana, you will see it is not just a request and
get a license. Not with a 120 day processing time.


Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.


Not quite the same when I was growing up. There was an interest in
handguns, and there were people that competed in target shooting of
handguns.. But shotguns and .22 rifles were pretty much what people
had. I did not know anyone with a centerfire rifle. There was no use
for them as there was very few deer or other large game. And I did
not know of a range where one could shoot a centerfire rifle.


We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.


I do not remember any RCM discussions on quick-draw and stopping power
of handguns. Might be because I just am not that interested in the
topic. But it certainly is not a topic that comes up a lot.



It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods, and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world.

The other side also cooks up a lot of fantastic scenarios too. A bad
guy on each side of a car for instance. A bad guy that finds you on
the ground after a heart attack and searches your body. The real
world is that you are not likely to ever need a concealed weapon. And
if you do, the bad guy probably has not done a lot of target
practice.


When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.

I do not remember Rangerssucks ever using any numbers or actual facts
in this discussion.
His arguments seemed to be pretty much that one should not carry a
concealed weapon because you may be better off without a gun.

Dan

--
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:43 pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:05:29 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

Janet Reno being compared to Stalin and Hitler. Well, Richard, you
truly are an ass.

Maybe, but you're appearing to be quite a hoplophobe.

Thanks,
Rich

No, I'm not afraid of firearms (unless they are pointed at me), but I
don't believe they have a place in polite society.

Sure they do. It just isn't a prominent one and it won't be, no matter what
Wayne LaPierre says.
This entire issue is little more that peons sending their pittance to the
Grand Pooh-Bah for reasons they don't even understand.
I love it. It's capitalism at it's best and worst in a single stroke.




--
John R. Carroll

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

"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

It has been done, Ed. The classic way was to sneak the contraband into
a backpack or vehicle.

Let's explain something about Newark: The kind of people who the police are
after, the ones who are carrying illegal guns, are not carrying backpacks.

I lived in Baltimore and Washington DC for many years, right in the
thick of it. These were not Newark, but they were working on it.

Baggy pants. There is always a way.

Don't underestimate the effect of motivation. Remember that 5% of
felony accusations are *knowingly* false, year after year.


This is about gang-bangers on the street, Joe. The beat cops already know,
in most cases, who they're after. They need a justification to pat them
down.

Don't worry, law-abiding CCW-holding residents of Newark won't be
inconvenienced. All three or four of them are safe. d8-)

They're probably undercover cops anyway, so they're already allowed to
shoot.

Speaking of Baltimore, in the 1970s there was an attempted armed robbery
at noon on a major street near Johns Hopkins Hospital, which is and was
in the center of your classic crime-ridden ghetto. It didn't go well
for the robber, a 31 year old plumber. The intended victim shot him
through the heart. Only one bullet was fired. The police publicly
appealed for the victim to come forward, saying that it was justifiable
homicide, promising that nothing bad would happen. Nobody stepped
forward.


Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:00:22 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Jul 27, 7:43*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:05:29 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:

Janet Reno being compared to Stalin and Hitler. Well, Richard, you
truly are an ass.

Maybe, but you're appearing to be quite a hoplophobe.

Thanks,
Rich

No, I'm not afraid of firearms (unless they are pointed at me), but I
don't believe they have a place in polite society.

They certainly can. The ladies and gentlemen that we have our
periodic "gunsmoke luncheons" with are regarded by most as
respectable, pleasant professionals. They know which fork to use
first and I've never seen any of 'em spit on the floor of the
restaurant. I clean up OK on a good day.

I have limited experience with golf and country clubs, but I must say
I've seen more boorish behavior at the c.c. than I have at any range.

I am way more
afraid of the gun owners than of the guns themselves.

Wull, ya....I'm sure you'd find my lovely wife scarey as hell. G In
MN it's not a big deal. You would never know that either of my
neighbors in the cities even owns any guns unless/until you
expressed interest.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:33:40 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

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.

You bet, Don. I laugh whenever someone answers messages signed by the
likes of "rangerssuck", or someone else with a nom de plume of such
eloquent and weighty status. sigh

Hint: If you stop responding to them, maybe they'll go away.

FWIW, Rangerssuck (I agree, BTW, living in Devils country g) is mostly
right, factually. Where he gets into disagreement, and on thin ice, is in
drawing conclusions about motivations and psychology. Even there, his
conclusions contain more than a grain of truth.

I'll bet Mark is shaking his head over this conversation. Ranger's views are
closer to those of most Europeans -- maybe halfway between them and
traditional American views -- who have been highly successful in reducing
gun violence to a cipher, compared to that in the US. If you discount those
views out-of-hand (which, it should be clarified, Don does not do) then
you're simply blinding yourself to a lot of significant facts.

As someone who has lived most of his life in a state with very strict gun
laws and fairly low gun-ownership rates (NJ: born here, and 47 years), as
well as some areas with very high gun ownership rates (western MD and
northeast PA, as well as MI; 14 years), I find the arguments amusing. The
real difference in perception is a result of social attitudes, not of facts.
But everyone tosses half-assed facts back and forth at each other, until the
noise is deafening.

For example, the states with the two lowest gun-crime rates are Hawaii and
Vermont: the strictest gun controls in the country in one case, and the most
lax in the other. But the highest rates are in states with high rates of gun
ownership and a fairly strong gun culture. If you look at all states:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...e-gun-violence

...you see some patterns, but they have only an uneven correspondence to
levels of gun control or gun ownership. I've seen correlation coefficients
that indicate a high rate of gun crime to rates of gun ownership and/or lax
gun control, and I don't doubt the statistic. But I don't think it tells us
very much in itself. Population density and a variety of demographics show
strong CCs as well, but they aren't uniform, either.

Perhaps a confusion factor for those who bandy stats with less than
comprehensive understanding of the math (not you, Ed) is that
causality cannot be inferred or deduced from correllation alone.
Chickens and eggs. Which came first, the gun crime or the registered
gun ownership, and to what extent did either cause the other?

The thing that amuses me, and that seems to perplex Ranger, is the way gun
issues here almost always wind up focusing on only one of the four main
areas of firearms interests (hunting; target shooting; collecting; and
people-shooting). It almost *always* gets down to people-shooting: handguns,
carrying, combat practice, terminal ballistics, and crime statistics. I'll
bet there are other people here over 60, like me, who were brought up with
guns and who did some kind of shooting virtually every week growing up --
closer to every day, in my case -- who feel like they've walked into a nest
of paranoids...paranoids with guns.

Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.

I've noticed a strong shift in the US gun culture over the years, including
a span of years in which I shot in DCM and was a certified rifle instructor
and an unpaid, volunteer pro-gun activist in NJ. It appears to me we see the
shift reflected here, in the nature of the gun discussions. When I was a kid
the big questions were about the merits of a .308 Winchester versus a
.30/06, or a .22 K-Hornet versus a .218 Bee, since we were nuts for wildcat
varmint guns. We shared our stocks of British-made frangible wads for 20-ga.
roll-crimp shells. A typical discussion was not about the stopping power of
a .40 S&W versus a .45 ACP, but how to reduce lock times in my buddy's
Arisaka that had been converted to 6mm Remington, or whether those new
plastic shot collars helped or hurt when you were shooting pheasants over
dogs. We read everything we could get about fiberglass bedding and laminated
stocks. We were a lot like the kids who were into hotrods, only we got to
shoot, and they didn't yet get to drive.

We saw ourselves as "American riflemen," even as 12-year-olds. And adults
had the same interests. That's how we got our hands on things like converted
Arisakas. g That was gun culture and gun ownership. The NRA's _American
Rifleman_ was all about that kind of shooting. We all belonged, mostly to
get deals on shooting stuff and to participate in the Sharpshooter medal
series. I had eight bars and a BSA Marksmanship Merit Badge.

I'm sure it was similar in many other places. I can't really track what
happened to bring defensive (or offensive?) handguns to the forefront. I
look at my issues of _American Rifleman_ now and they look like stage-prop
catalogs for a snuff film. Guns for killing people, and political diatribes
and demonizing, are the whole point of that magazine now. That and black
rifles, which can be interesting, but these aren't sporterized military
rifles with set triggers and inletted stocks. I don't really need a flash
suppressor or taped-together magazines, thanks, and why are there so many of
them? We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.

And what the hell am I going to do with a laser-sighted semiautomatic
rifle...in the little .223 caliber, of all things? Are we getting into
action-shooting of groundhogs at night, like whack-a-mole in the dark, with
jacketed bullets? Or is it really all about fantasies of shooting illegal
Mexicans as they crawl out of the Rio Grande by the light of the moon?

Not to speak for him, but my guess is that Ranger is tuned into the
nuttiness of a lot of today's gun culture, and I must admit, as a life-long
gun owner and supporter of the right to self-defense, that he has a point.
It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods, and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world. Slightly less whacky,
but still evidence of a need for emotional support, is the endless combing
of the news for evidence -- no matter how remote and equivocal -- that it's
a good idea to carry heavy firepower into church or your neighborhood
barbeque.

When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.

Geez, Ed! I found myself laughing with some of your derisive humor
and nodding in agreement elsewhere. Excellent discourse.

Only thing I'd add is that we enjoy shooting handguns a lot,
particularly when it's a social occasion with good friends but Mary
and I often just go shoot when we're both free and feel like a range
date. Our "gunsmoke buds" are all still gainfully employed so not as
free as we retired folk.

I grew up with a rifle in my hands, never thought I wanted a handgun
enough to afford it until after retirement. Now we have several and
we enjoy them a lot.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:24:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



The other side also cooks up a lot of fantastic scenarios too. A bad
guy on each side of a car for instance. A bad guy that finds you on
the ground after a heart attack and searches your body. The real
world is that you are not likely to ever need a concealed weapon.

Right. Paying attention and avoiding dangerous venues are the best
defensive measures by far. In many or most parts of the US there are
no dangerous venues.



I do not remember Rangerssucks ever using any numbers or actual facts
in this discussion.
His arguments seemed to be pretty much that one should not carry a
concealed weapon because you may be better off without a gun.

He's absolutely right about that in the context that those who are
unwilling or unable to take training in armed self defense and on the
applicable laws in their state, and then develop and maintain a
reasonable level of proficiency and skill, are better off without a
gun. My understanding is that popping a cap in self defense will
very probably cost somewhere between 25K and 100K in legal defense
costs. Even if the shoot is so clearly justified as self defense
*under applicable law in that * that prosecution is not pursued,
there will still almost certainly be civil action by survivors of the
poor assailant scumbag who probably were afraid of him but see a gravy
train with a little help from an opportunist lawyer.

Bottom line: it may be imprudent not to carry in some situations but
shots fired can and probably will be a life-changing event.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:24:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



The other side also cooks up a lot of fantastic scenarios too. A bad
guy on each side of a car for instance. A bad guy that finds you on
the ground after a heart attack and searches your body. The real
world is that you are not likely to ever need a concealed weapon.

Right. Paying attention and avoiding dangerous venues are the best
defensive measures by far. In many or most parts of the US there are
no dangerous venues.



I do not remember Rangerssucks ever using any numbers or actual facts
in this discussion.
His arguments seemed to be pretty much that one should not carry a
concealed weapon because you may be better off without a gun.

He's absolutely right about that in the context that those who are
unwilling or unable to take training in armed self defense and on the
applicable laws in their state, and then develop and maintain a
reasonable level of proficiency and skill, are better off without a
gun. My understanding is that popping a cap in self defense will
very probably cost somewhere between 25K and 100K in legal defense
costs. Even if the shoot is so clearly justified as self defense
*under applicable law in that * that prosecution is not pursued,
there will still almost certainly be civil action by survivors of the
poor assailant scumbag who probably were afraid of him but see a gravy
train with a little help from an opportunist lawyer.

Bottom line: it may be imprudent not to carry in some situations but
shots fired can and probably will be a life-changing event.

I carry a nice sized can of pepper spray. About as round as a silver dollar
and about eight inches tall. Legal to carry visible. I do carry at times,
but for places where carrying is not really good for some reason, I feel
confident with some spray.

Steve

No, I'm not afraid of firearms (unless they are pointed at me), but I
don't believe they have a place in polite society.

Doesn't that contradict a statement made by a famous person that an armed
society is a polite society?

Which particular planet are you speaking that has polite societies? I've
been a lot of places in my life, and I can sure say that there were some
polite places. Yet, oddly, they still had police and there was always some
violent acts carried out.

Steve

I am way more
afraid of the gun owners than of the guns themselves.

Amen to that. It don't take no learning to have a gun. Legally or
illegally. A gun is just like a rock. It will sit there and do nothing
until it turns to dust. There is nothing to fear from a rock until someone
picks it up.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Jul 27, 10:36 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




...you see some patterns, but they have only an uneven correspondence to
levels of gun control or gun ownership. I've seen correlation coefficients
that indicate a high rate of gun crime to rates of gun ownership and/or
lax
gun control, and I don't doubt the statistic. But I don't think it tells
us
very much in itself. Population density and a variety of demographics show
strong CCs as well, but they aren't uniform, either.


I also doubt that the correlation between high rates of violent crime
and gun ownership mean anything. Looking at the internet site you
posted, Louisiana has a high rate of violent crime, but it used to be
a state that did not issue permits to carry concealed. You could
carry a gun, but not concealed. And if you look at the requirements
to get a CCW in Louisiana, you will see it is not just a request and
get a license. Not with a 120 day processing time.

Hmm. Now that you've analyzed Louisiana, how about the other 49 states? g

That's fine cherry-picking, Dan. Now you can roll that one around until
you've completely obscured the general character of the issue and the
trends.

Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult
and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one
of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who
served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.


Not quite the same when I was growing up. There was an interest in
handguns, and there were people that competed in target shooting of
handguns.. But shotguns and .22 rifles were pretty much what people
had. I did not know anyone with a centerfire rifle. There was no use
for them as there was very few deer or other large game. And I did
not know of a range where one could shoot a centerfire rifle.

Well, I have no idea where you grew up. I identified where *I* grew up, and
both states were big deer-hunting states. There were centerfire rifles
aplenty.

We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.


I do not remember any RCM discussions on quick-draw and stopping power
of handguns. Might be because I just am not that interested in the
topic. But it certainly is not a topic that comes up a lot.

Jeez. There's an example right in THIS THREAD. Take a look at the
discussions of .380 ACP and 9mm, and holsters...holy cow. Most importantly,
notice how the thread steered that way.

It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of
carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed
guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods,
and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world.


The other side also cooks up a lot of fantastic scenarios too. A bad
guy on each side of a car for instance. A bad guy that finds you on
the ground after a heart attack and searches your body. The real
world is that you are not likely to ever need a concealed weapon. And
if you do, the bad guy probably has not done a lot of target
practice.

Well, there's a good argument about taking the fantasies out of the
discussion. I agree entirely.

When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your
cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has
morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.

I do not remember Rangerssucks ever using any numbers or actual facts
in this discussion.

?? In terms of death rates, they favor his side of the issue. Please don't
try to tell us you don't agree.

His arguments seemed to be pretty much that one should not carry a
concealed weapon because you may be better off without a gun.

Hmm. You just may be. You could try looking at the numbers. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:36:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help.

Yup. I'll add that even some of those who don't make a big deal of it
are still in need of emotional help. Of course, I'm in AZ, where it
sometimes seems that guns might as well be baseball cards. I've never
heard any of my friends or neighbors even consider the big picture,
it's just accepted wisdumb that there isn't any problem that can't be
solved with more guns. Two people I know bought AKs in fear of the
invading hordes to hear them tell it. If they really believe that's
where we're headed, then they'd be better off to lose some weight so
that they look less like walking beef-round. :-)

I see that someone wrote about how having a gun makes one less likely
to escalate an argument. Holy crap. I'm sure that's true in some
cases, but in general it has to be the exact opposite. Check it out on
a large scale - does anybody really believe that there'd have been an
Iraq invasion if all that hardware wasn't fueled up and ready?

I predict a tightening spiral dive when it comes to guns. We fear, we
buy more guns. We see more guns around, we get more to protect
ourselves. The economy is bad, we buy so many guns that it creates a
shortage. Combine it with our infamous prowess at math and perception
of risk and odds and bloody hell... Somebody needs to write a book
about how to survive on a diet of guns. The best recipes for primer
soup and stag-grip stew, that sort of thing. :-)

Wayne

On Jul 28, 11:44*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Hmm. Now that you've analyzed Louisiana, how about the other 49 states? g

That's fine cherry-picking, Dan. Now you can roll that one around until
you've completely obscured the general character of the issue and the
trends.

Hey, I just picked Louisiana because it was number one on your list of
states by violent crimes. I have no faith in correlations unless
there are no huge outliers. You pointed out an inconsistency among
the least violent crime states. I looked at the other end and
immediately found what I consider another inconsistency.



Of all the people I knew who owned guns, and that was almost every adult
and
most of the kids in western MD and northeast PA, I only remember two who
actually shot handguns. We just weren't interested. They had nothing to do
with our central interest, which was hunting, or our secondary interest,
which was target shooting. Shooting targets meant shooting skeet or making
holes in paper bullseyes at 100 - 500 yards. Handguns were useless crap,
unless you liked to collect rattlesnake skins while trout fishing, as one
of
my fishing buddies in PA did. He had a .22 revolver. The few handguns that
were around were mostly WWII trophies, in the hands of the adults who
served
there. And they stayed in the gun case almost all of their lives.

Not quite the same when I was growing up. *There was an interest in
handguns, and there were people that competed in target shooting of
handguns.. *But shotguns and .22 rifles were pretty much what people
had. *I did not know anyone with a centerfire rifle. *There was no use
for them as there was very few deer or other large game. *And I did
not know of a range where one could shoot a centerfire rifle.

Well, I have no idea where you grew up. I identified where *I* grew up, and
both states were big deer-hunting states. There were centerfire rifles
aplenty.

I believe you. And was agreeing with you on pistols not being popular
among the general population. But there was a range where one could
shoot pistols. No range for centerfire rifles as there were not many
around and no target shooting for centerfire rifles.

We get into a discussion about guns here on this NG, and watch what
happens; it's all quick-draw and stopping power (in a human being, rather
than a deer or bear) before the first spit hits the ground.

I do not remember any RCM discussions on quick-draw and stopping power
of handguns. *Might be because I just am not that interested in the
topic. *But it certainly is not a topic that comes up a lot.

Jeez. There's an example right in THIS THREAD. Take a look at the
discussions of .380 ACP and 9mm, and holsters...holy cow. Most importantly,
notice how the thread steered that way.

I did not look at every post, but did look at the first 40 posts. No
mention of quick draw in that 40, and only one humerous mention of
stopping power.........Carrying a Casul to ward off the cookie
monster.



It's one thing to calibrate a possible threat, as Don did in starting this
track of discussion, and make a judgment that the inconvenience of
carrying
is worth the extremely remote possibility that you might be glad that you
did, in a situation in which there are some mitigating circumstances that
make it worth more than ordinary consideration. It's another thing
altogether to build a culture around the minutiae of carrying concealed
guns
in society and to obsess about the remotest of statistical likelihoods,
and
to cook up fantastic scenarios that read like something from a cheap novel
but which have almost no referents in the real world.

The other side also cooks up a lot of fantastic scenarios too. *A bad
guy on each side of a car for instance. A bad guy that finds you on
the ground after a heart attack and searches your body. *The real
world is that you are not likely to ever need a concealed weapon. *And
if you do, the bad guy probably has not done a lot of target
practice.

Well, there's a good argument about taking the fantasies out of the
discussion. I agree entirely.

When you boil it down to essentials, Ranger has the numbers. You won't be
able to build much of a logical argument against it. But you have every
right to self-defense, IMO, and to the means to defend yourself. In other
words, carry if you must, but if you make a big deal out of it, you're
probably in need of emotional help. One hopes that you don't lose your
cool
at the wrong time. Or that the fantasies carry you away and you wind up
giving everyone the creeps. And the way much of our gun culture has
morphed
into some kind of a soldier-of-fortune fantasy, it can be very creepy
indeed.
I do not remember Rangerssucks ever using any numbers or actual facts
in this discussion.

Which of his posts are you talking about. The only post of his that I
can find that has a number mentioned in it is where he talks about bad
guys going about in Two's.


?? In terms of death rates, they favor his side of the issue. Please don't
try to tell us you don't agree.

If you let me know where he mentioned death rates, I will let you know
if I agree.


His arguments seemed to be pretty much that one should not carry a
concealed weapon because you may be better off without a gun.

Hmm. You just may be. You could try looking at the numbers. d8-)

And you are the one that came up with the statistic that resisting
seems to be slightly better than not resisting. 8-).

Dan
--
Ed Huntress