Gunner Asch on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:10:39 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But you fantasy about government employees all running of to join the
rebels, which is physically possible, but doesn't seem to be what has
happened historically in any country.

All? No..but a good many of them most certainly will..starting with
the troops themselves. Office folks...perhaps not so many. Which is
why Liberals tend to work in Government jobs.

He might want to look into the history of "civil unrest". How the
drug cartels in Mexico were able to hire some of the US trained
Mexican special forces troops to work for them. How the Cossacks
signaled that the gig was over, when they fraternized with the
demonstrators, rather than disperse them, in 1917
Or what happened to the Peoples Army in Yugoslavia, after Tito
died? (Or the Lebanese Army, prior to that country's civil war.)
Or the "Velvet Revolution" in the Philippines - when the Army
"voted" by deciding to "stay in barracks" and President Marcos was
replaced. Similar thing happened when the Communist putsch against
the Soviet Government failed, because the Red Army decided to sit this
one out.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.



The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.


Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.
And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.


Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.


Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.

One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

And those already made became very expensive and non PC.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Guns used in crimes are purchased legally? I suppose all were because at
one time they were new. Interviews with convicts in Wisconsin prisons
say some straw purchases, a very few at gun shows, most stolen or bought
on the street. An outright ban might get 50% compliance among honest(as
opposed to lawful) citizens, 0% among criminals.

David

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

David

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

Another way is to see how many times they failed at other methods. For
example, my former college roommate, who became schizophrenic at age
22. He tried running his car into a ditch on I-96. That didn't work.
So he stole a semi and tried driving it into a bridge on I-80 in
Pennsylvania. No luck.

So, one day in 1979, living in Daytona Beach, he bought a .38 Spl. S&W
revolver, put it to his head, and finally had success. One wonders how
it would have gone if we had a background-check system in place then.

Dan was basically kicked out of the mental-health system, with no one
to keep track of his meds. He quit taking them. Whether he would have
been rescued if he had another failure is problematic. Not only do we
have a mental health system that leaks like a sieve, but nobody seems
to care, either.

You're dismissing the question out of ignorance, David.

--
Ed Huntress



David

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.



Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

See above.



Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.

One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

Yeah, like the US. We have malaria all over the place now.

When did you join the idiot brigade, David?


And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

And those already made became very expensive and non PC.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

It doesn't seem to matter. That isn't a factor in success.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Guns used in crimes are purchased legally? I suppose all were because at
one time they were new.

Duh... Good morning.

Interviews with convicts in Wisconsin prisons
say some straw purchases, a very few at gun shows, most stolen or bought
on the street. An outright ban might get 50% compliance among honest(as
opposed to lawful) citizens, 0% among criminals.

Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

--
Ed Huntress



David

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:50:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

If I lived or worked in some stinking pesthole, I'd behave
differently. I'd probaby carry a gun. It would give me some comfort
until I was shot by someone who knew he wanted to shoot before I knew
that he did.

Which is to say, all but a few. But such comforts, like paranoia,
aren't very rational.

I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/20/2015 10:39 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:50:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

If I lived or worked in some stinking pesthole, I'd behave
differently. I'd probaby carry a gun. It would give me some comfort
until I was shot by someone who knew he wanted to shoot before I knew
that he did.

Which is to say, all but a few. But such comforts, like paranoia,
aren't very rational.

I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)

I don't have them for the possibility of getting to them in the middle
of the night if I hear the window break. They're a precaution against a
more foreseeable risk. A friend once pointed out that in the event of a
truly huge disaster like a magnitude 8.5 or higher earthquake, there
could very likely be a period of 48-72 hours during which civil
authority is basically non-existent. In that event, the gun safe will
remain open and the trigger lock will be removed from the pump shotgun.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:39:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:50:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

If I lived or worked in some stinking pesthole, I'd behave
differently. I'd probaby carry a gun. It would give me some comfort
until I was shot by someone who knew he wanted to shoot before I knew
that he did.

Which is to say, all but a few. But such comforts, like paranoia,
aren't very rational.

I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)


Jim Jefferies makes it funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:50:23 -0700, Captain Obvious
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:39:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:50:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

If I lived or worked in some stinking pesthole, I'd behave
differently. I'd probaby carry a gun. It would give me some comfort
until I was shot by someone who knew he wanted to shoot before I knew
that he did.

Which is to say, all but a few. But such comforts, like paranoia,
aren't very rational.

I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)


Jim Jefferies makes it funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I


HA-Ha! Someone posted that before. Maybe you?

Anyway, think of Jon Ball when you get to 4:53 in the video. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/20/2015 10:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

Another way is to see how many times they failed at other methods. For
example, my former college roommate, who became schizophrenic at age
22. He tried running his car into a ditch on I-96. That didn't work.
So he stole a semi and tried driving it into a bridge on I-80 in
Pennsylvania. No luck.

So, one day in 1979, living in Daytona Beach, he bought a .38 Spl. S&W
revolver, put it to his head, and finally had success. One wonders how
it would have gone if we had a background-check system in place then.

Dan was basically kicked out of the mental-health system, with no one
to keep track of his meds. He quit taking them. Whether he would have
been rescued if he had another failure is problematic. Not only do we
have a mental health system that leaks like a sieve, but nobody seems
to care, either.

You're dismissing the question out of ignorance, David.

Not really, two good friends of mine, both bi-polar, killed themselves
when at the bottom of their mood swings, one by sitting in a car in a
closed garage with the engine running, the other w/ a .38 Spl S&W. I had
refused to sell her a gun some time before.

So I know something of this. In both cases, this was the first attempt
that I know of. Neither had had any history that would have precluded
buying a gun. The use of a gun was irrelevant to the result.

About 50% of US suicides are by gun in the US, with about 24% by hanging.

Japan has a suicide rate about 2-1/2 as high as the US, with hanging at
about 50%. Somehow they manage to do it w/o guns.

David

On 7/20/2015 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

It hasn't crept into my life beyond paying attention.



Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

See above.

I did. You don't think people should be able to defend themselves? My
reluctance to kill is less than my reluctance to be killed.



Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.

One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

Yeah, like the US. We have malaria all over the place now.

When did you join the idiot brigade, David?

Not so far. So the rest of the world is ****ed as long as the US is OK?



And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

And those already made became very expensive and non PC.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

It doesn't seem to matter. That isn't a factor in success.

Infringing on human rights matters to me, if not to you.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Guns used in crimes are purchased legally? I suppose all were because at
one time they were new.

Duh... Good morning.

Duh... Good Afternoon.


Interviews with convicts in Wisconsin prisons
say some straw purchases, a very few at gun shows, most stolen or bought
on the street. An outright ban might get 50% compliance among honest(as
opposed to lawful) citizens, 0% among criminals.

Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

On 7/20/2015 12:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:50:34 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

Cut the ****. Maybe the man who was murdered by the thug black
teenagers in Philadelphia - you know, the guy whose murder is at the
root of this thread - should have been a little more "paranoid" when
walking his dog.

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

If I lived or worked in some stinking pesthole, I'd behave
differently. I'd probaby carry a gun. It would give me some comfort
until I was shot by someone who knew he wanted to shoot before I knew
that he did.

I don't live in a pesthole, that's about a mile west of me, but
sometimes the boundary becomes indistinct. So I carry. And I have enough
situational awareness that I probably won't shoot second. Probably. At
least I have the option.

Which is to say, all but a few. But such comforts, like paranoia,
aren't very rational.

The line between paranoia and situational awareness can also be indistinct.


I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)

:^)

My collectible ones are in the safes. Not likely I'd carry my artillery
Luger.

David

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:17:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

Ive posted years ago about the 5-6 times Ive had to actually draw my
weapon in self defense. Fortunately as a civilian..Ive not had to pull
the trigger on any of them. And I pray that continues.

Now Fast Eddy may live in a nice secure place..but lets tape some $100
bills to our backs and he and I can go for a walk in the places I have
to work. He of course will go unarmed..and die..and I will go well
armed..and live.

The poor ******* hasnt a ****ing clue that "HIS " AO may not be the
same AO as the rest of us. **** him.

There is a reason the asshole is in my killfile. He is a dickhead.

Gunner

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:56:33 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 10:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

Another way is to see how many times they failed at other methods. For
example, my former college roommate, who became schizophrenic at age
22. He tried running his car into a ditch on I-96. That didn't work.
So he stole a semi and tried driving it into a bridge on I-80 in
Pennsylvania. No luck.

So, one day in 1979, living in Daytona Beach, he bought a .38 Spl. S&W
revolver, put it to his head, and finally had success. One wonders how
it would have gone if we had a background-check system in place then.

Dan was basically kicked out of the mental-health system, with no one
to keep track of his meds. He quit taking them. Whether he would have
been rescued if he had another failure is problematic. Not only do we
have a mental health system that leaks like a sieve, but nobody seems
to care, either.

You're dismissing the question out of ignorance, David.

Not really, two good friends of mine, both bi-polar, killed themselves
when at the bottom of their mood swings, one by sitting in a car in a
closed garage with the engine running, the other w/ a .38 Spl S&W. I had
refused to sell her a gun some time before.

So I know something of this. In both cases, this was the first attempt
that I know of. Neither had had any history that would have precluded
buying a gun. The use of a gun was irrelevant to the result.

So why did you ask the nonsense question about querying them after
they're dead? That was the idiot remark.


About 50% of US suicides are by gun in the US, with about 24% by hanging.

So how many would we have if there weren't any guns?


Japan has a suicide rate about 2-1/2 as high as the US, with hanging at
about 50%. Somehow they manage to do it w/o guns.

And the Philiippines have a rate that's 1/4 of ours. What conclusion
do you draw from this?


David

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 10:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:19 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 9:21 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

Right. Paranoia runs deep.

It hasn't crept into my life beyond paying attention.



Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

See above.

I did. You don't think people should be able to defend themselves? My
reluctance to kill is less than my reluctance to be killed.

No, you have a perfect right to defend yourself. And if you have to,
it's time to move.




Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.

One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

Yeah, like the US. We have malaria all over the place now.

When did you join the idiot brigade, David?

Not so far. So the rest of the world is ****ed as long as the US is OK?

The rest of the world can do what it wants with DDT.




And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

And those already made became very expensive and non PC.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

It doesn't seem to matter. That isn't a factor in success.

Infringing on human rights matters to me, if not to you.

It doesn't matter in terms of whether bans succeed or fail.



Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Guns used in crimes are purchased legally? I suppose all were because at
one time they were new.

Duh... Good morning.

Duh... Good Afternoon.


Interviews with convicts in Wisconsin prisons
say some straw purchases, a very few at gun shows, most stolen or bought
on the street. An outright ban might get 50% compliance among honest(as
opposed to lawful) citizens, 0% among criminals.

Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

Among our many stupid laws, we have practically none regarding
responsibility to keep guns safe. Contrast that with Switzerland, for
example.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:25:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:17:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

Ive posted years ago about the 5-6 times Ive had to actually draw my
weapon

.... and every time it was exactly as believable as your 264mph
motorcyle ride. You are the CLASSIC example of the problem with people
who worship guns being the last people who should have them. You'll
never admit to the relationship between your need to dye your hair and
your need to carry a gun. Get off your ass and improve yourself. The
insecurity will fall away. A side benefit will be more living in the
real world instead of inside your cockamamie brain.

On 7/20/2015 1:40 PM, Captain Obvious wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:25:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:17:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

Ive posted years ago about the 5-6 times Ive had to actually draw my
weapon

... and every time it was exactly as believable as your 264mph
motorcyle ride. You are the CLASSIC example of the problem with people
who worship guns being the last people who should have them. You'll
never admit to the relationship between your need to dye your hair and
your need to carry a gun. Get off your ass and improve yourself. The
insecurity will fall away. A side benefit will be more living in the
real world instead of inside your cockamamie brain.

gummy-bitch is 61 years old, has few and rapidly obsolescing skills, and
is in poor health. Just how much self-improvement do you think he can
achieve? I'd say it was cruel of you to suggest it, except that I was
laughing to hard at it.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:25:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:17:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

Ive posted years ago about the 5-6 times Ive had to actually draw my
weapon in self defense. Fortunately as a civilian..Ive not had to pull
the trigger on any of them. And I pray that continues.

Now Fast Eddy may live in a nice secure place..but lets tape some $100
bills to our backs and he and I can go for a walk in the places I have
to work. He of course will go unarmed..and die..and I will go well
armed..and live.

Here are a couple of tips: First, don't tape $100 bills to your back.
Second, find a better place to work.

Then you won't have to rub your bones raw carrying a gun around.


The poor ******* hasnt a ****ing clue that "HIS " AO may not be the
same AO as the rest of us. **** him.

You aren't "the rest of us." You're an asshole who's so screwed up
that he has to work in shooting galleries, with no backstop.

We did have a shooting in my town once. A guy shot at his estranged
wife through a basement window with a .22 rifle. He missed. That was
in 1979.


There is a reason the asshole is in my killfile. He is a dickhead.

I think the guy who walks around with $100 bills on his back and who
works in a dangerous pesthole is the dickhead.

And the reason you have me in your killfile is that you insulted me so
many times, that when I started calling you on your bull****, you
found it to be too much to handle.

You know this perfectly well.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:05:19 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:50:23 -0700, Captain Obvious
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:39:14 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:


I wonder about your "two handguns in a safe." I hope you remember the
combination in time, should you ever need it. d8-)


Jim Jefferies makes it funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I


HA-Ha! Someone posted that before. Maybe you?

Nope, it was new to me only about a week ago.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:49:28 -0700, Michael A Terrall
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 1:40 PM, Captain Obvious wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:25:21 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:17:57 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Everybody has a right to self-defense. And, after 67 years, many of
them working in big cities and walking home at night, never having
seen an altercation bigger than a shoving match, I'm glad I haven't
wasted my money or my time lugging a gun around, on the chance that my
one in a million number might come up.

I have been in inner city blues clubs where I felt that I might have a
sign of POTENTIAL VICTIM taped to my back. Not a problem after I
demonstrated I was NOT going to be ****ed with.

Ive posted years ago about the 5-6 times Ive had to actually draw my
weapon

... and every time it was exactly as believable as your 264mph
motorcyle ride. You are the CLASSIC example of the problem with people
who worship guns being the last people who should have them. You'll
never admit to the relationship between your need to dye your hair and
your need to carry a gun. Get off your ass and improve yourself. The
insecurity will fall away. A side benefit will be more living in the
real world instead of inside your cockamamie brain.

gummy-bitch is 61 years old, has few and rapidly obsolescing skills, and
is in poor health. Just how much self-improvement do you think he can
achieve? I'd say it was cruel of you to suggest it, except that I was
laughing to hard at it.

The #1 thing he should do is use however much time he spends here to
instead mime some facsimile of a normal middle class life. He could
start by watching an episode of Leave It To Beaver to study what a
home is supposed to look like. The first thing he'd notice is that it
doesn't include clumps of dog hair or cat **** stains or furniture
that belongs in a dumpster. A baby step for sure, but one could lead
to another. If he lives a few more years he could get to where I was
when I first started delivering newspapers. His other option is to
shoot down the ambition fairy when it overflies his dump on the way to
the migrant camps.

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:36:35 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

Only if you're disposed to read it in the least logical way, Joe. The
situation obviously is a case of looking backward, from the use of a
gun in crime back to its source.


With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

Jeez.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:35:24 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:
......................

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will
eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide. Although I suspect that if
they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or into oncoming traffic:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/s...ey=&autologin=

Years ago when I was stationed in Bangor Maine I was friendly with a
State Police Sergeant and we used to discuss the latest news - "man
hits bridge abutment". He said that under Maine State law the State
Police impounded every auto involved in a fatal accident and inspected
it to help to determine the cause of the accident. He said that they
were pretty sure that suicide was involved in a very large percent of
"one vehicle crash" type accidents.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:52:25 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.

The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Duh, do you pracice tautology much, John?

It's self-evident that "doing away with guns" will "eliminate many,
perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes."

Maybe you'd like to try re-wording that. d8-)


Of course it will Ed. Just like the law against gambling virtually
eliminated betting on what number would come up tomorrow, or the law
against prostitution eliminated sin, or the law against booze
eliminated that Demon Rum.

After all we do have laws about guns. The waiting period that keeps
people from buying a gun and shooting their wife in a fit of pique, or
the law about concealed carrying. And certainly they have made
miraculous inroads into the problem of firearm deaths.

Or drugs. There has been laws against most of the recreational
chemicals for decades and of course that has caused a virtual "no
drug" atmosphere in the U.S.

And the Sullivan Law virtually banned pistols in New York... and of
course during the "Mafia Wars" nobody fired a pistol in anger.

So, given the glowing success that banning something has had in the
U.S. it is obvious that essentially banning certain people from
possessing guns will cause firearm related deaths to negligible
numbers.

As I previously wrote, do you believe that the blokes holding up the
7-11s are going it with legal guns? Or the guys in the ghetto doing
the drive-bys have a concealed carry permit?


But, what the hell Ed. If you cannot refute the logic just pirouette
across the stage and start arguing grammar.



Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

David

Difficult to get an answer though :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.



The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.


Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.
And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Exactly what I have been saying. Individuals who commit the majority
of the gun crimes do it with what might be termed "banned guns".

And your argument apparently is that banning guns will reduce firearm
crimes.

Well, Ed, it doesn't seem to have.

Next, I assume, you will argue that "after all, if guns are banned
there won't be any here to buy", to which I will argue that "as cocoa
plants don't grow in the U.S. obviously cocaine is unobtainable here."
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:35:24 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:
......................

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will
eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide. Although I suspect that if
they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or into oncoming traffic:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/s...ey=&autologin=

Years ago when I was stationed in Bangor Maine I was friendly with a
State Police Sergeant and we used to discuss the latest news - "man
hits bridge abutment". He said that under Maine State law the State
Police impounded every auto involved in a fatal accident and inspected
it to help to determine the cause of the accident. He said that they
were pretty sure that suicide was involved in a very large percent of
"one vehicle crash" type accidents.

Quite true. I assisted in a number of such investigations when I was
playing cops and robbers. The big problem in my area..not a lot of
bridge abutments, few trees etc. High desert..not a lot of places to
"run into things". So we had a surprising number of people driving
into deep canyons. Unfortunately..far too many of them survived as the
cars had become much "safer". So they "survived"..for whatever value
one could make of being a para or quadraplegic or brain damage etc
etc.

Hell of a thing to try to kill yourself and simply put yourself in a
wheelchair for the next 40 yrs, unable to even pull the trigger on a
pistol held to ones head.

Gunner

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

David

Difficult to get an answer though :-)

Actually not.

Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=when...d+suicide+rose

181 million hits.

Not difficult at all.

"As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell,
it is ..."

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:36:35 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

Its now closer to 400 million firearms in the US, in private hands....

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:52:25 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.

The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Duh, do you pracice tautology much, John?

It's self-evident that "doing away with guns" will "eliminate many,
perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes."

Maybe you'd like to try re-wording that. d8-)


Of course it will Ed. Just like the law against gambling virtually
eliminated betting on what number would come up tomorrow, or the law
against prostitution eliminated sin, or the law against booze
eliminated that Demon Rum.

It's interesting that you're lumping gun bans with bans on vices. Your
comparisons suggest that you think that guns represent something
immoral. I thought that bans on chemicals were more appropriate.


After all we do have laws about guns. The waiting period that keeps
people from buying a gun and shooting their wife in a fit of pique, or
the law about concealed carrying. And certainly they have made
miraculous inroads into the problem of firearm deaths.

Firearms homicides are down 49% since 1993.


Or drugs. There has been laws against most of the recreational
chemicals for decades and of course that has caused a virtual "no
drug" atmosphere in the U.S.

And the Sullivan Law virtually banned pistols in New York... and of
course during the "Mafia Wars" nobody fired a pistol in anger.

I'm sure you realize how stupid this "point" is, John, since
practically all of the guns used in crime in NYC come from out of
state. In NJ, the figure is 82%, for similar reasons.

But the murder rate in NYC last year was the lowest since 1963, and
MUCH lower than cities in many states with lax gun laws.

Why do you suppose that is?


So, given the glowing success that banning something has had in the
U.S. it is obvious that essentially banning certain people from
possessing guns will cause firearm related deaths to negligible
numbers.

Well, let's put it this way: It's worked in other civilized countries,
but the horse is out of the barn in the US. Our laws are so lax, and
guns have so proliferated, that it will be easy for criminals to get
guns for decades, no matter how draconian our laws may become.

So we've screwed ourselves into a no-win situation. Now actual
functioning people -- including many here -- think that carrying a
concealed gun is not only sensible, but a perfectly natural thing.

The perspective is thus based on the fact that a lot of other people
have guns, and some of them are criminals. An extraordinarily high
percentage of crime involves a gun in the US. This is not a common
thing in other advanced countries.

And so here we are. There's really no need for you to keep repeating
the tired, and mostly fraudulent, arguments against gun restrictions.
At this time in our history, it no longer matters. We're awash in guns
and we have a set of laws that make it easy and fairly safe for
criminals to obtain them. In many states, we've made it considerably
easier over the past decade or so. America is a pretty safe place for
murderers with guns, and our comparative statistics prove it.


As I previously wrote, do you believe that the blokes holding up the
7-11s are going it with legal guns? Or the guys in the ghetto doing
the drive-bys have a concealed carry permit?

They don't need one. They can get a gun on a street corner -- a gun
that was bought legally not long ago.



But, what the hell Ed. If you cannot refute the logic just pirouette
across the stage and start arguing grammar.

I'm not arguing grammar. I'm pointing out that criminals's guns come
from the same places we buy ours. It's easy for them. And if they buy
in a private sale, in most states, all they have to do is lie.

Our gun laws that attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
are based on the premise that criminals would never lie. Imagine that.




Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.



The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.


Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.
And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Exactly what I have been saying. Individuals who commit the majority
of the gun crimes do it with what might be termed "banned guns".

What guns are banned? They aren't banned. Any criminal can buy one.
Our gun laws are a joke.


And your argument apparently is that banning guns will reduce firearm
crimes

No, that's not my argument. I haven't made any arguments about what
should be done, or what the consequences would be. You're just making
it up in your own head.


Well, Ed, it doesn't seem to have.

Next, I assume, you will argue that "after all, if guns are banned
there won't be any here to buy", to which I will argue that "as cocoa
plants don't grow in the U.S. obviously cocaine is unobtainable here."

No, I wouldn't argue that. Only your strawman would argue that.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:58:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:36:35 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

Its now closer to 400 million firearms in the US, in private hands....

I'll bet it's more, and add another, what, 150mil with the plain
criminals, gangs, mob, and cartel operatives here in the States?


(Did you get the resend of my email to both of your addies? No email
response yet. Tick tock.)

--
My desire to be well-informed is currently
at odds with my desire to remain sane. --Sipkess

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:15:02 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:58:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:36:35 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

Its now closer to 400 million firearms in the US, in private hands....

I'll bet it's more, and add another, what, 150mil with the plain
criminals, gangs, mob, and cartel operatives here in the States?


(Did you get the resend of my email to both of your addies? No email
response yet. Tick tock.)

Oh..yeah I did. What if we met half way? It would cost damned near
the same thing as shipping it. How long will you be down for?
And what else can I add to it?

Gunner, 805-732-5308 (and dont lose it this time)

On 7/20/2015 6:46 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:35:24 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:10 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:
......................

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

No, Ed is simply stating what apparently a large portion of the U.S.
population seem to believe. That doing away with "guns" will
eliminate
many, perhaps most, of those horrible firearm crimes.

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide. Although I suspect that if
they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or into oncoming traffic:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/s...ey=&autologin=

Years ago when I was stationed in Bangor Maine I was friendly with a
State Police Sergeant and we used to discuss the latest news - "man
hits bridge abutment". He said that under Maine State law the State
Police impounded every auto involved in a fatal accident and inspected
it to help to determine the cause of the accident. He said that they
were pretty sure that suicide was involved in a very large percent of
"one vehicle crash" type accidents.

Quite true. I assisted in a number of such investigations when I was
playing cops and robbers. The big problem in my area..not a lot of
bridge abutments, few trees etc. High desert..

Fresno county is not the "high desert", you effing liar.

On 7/20/2015 6:56 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

David

Difficult to get an answer though :-)

Actually not.

Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=when...d+suicide+rose


No, ****wit, that doesn't answer the question. The question is, would
people who commit suicide by firearm still have successfully committed
suicide by some other means.

You are so stupid.

On 7/20/2015 6:58 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 20:36:35 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:
[snip]
Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

I assume that you are not claiming that all legally bought guns end up
in criminal hands within 2.5 years, although one can read the statement
that way.

With about 300 million firearms in private hands, this would be quite
the shootout.

Joe Gwinn

Its now closer to 400 million firearms in the US, in private hands....

Cite.

What bull****.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:35:34 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:05:38 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.


And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

There's no connection.


I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.



The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

It's a fairly foolish comparison. People wanted to drink. It's not
true that many people want to shoot and kill each other.

Note what's happened in the UK and Australia when some or most types
of guns were banned.


Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

People like to ****. Far fewer want to kill.


Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

It's a mixed bag, John. Some work, some don't. The DDT ban was very
effective. It's pretty hard to buy asbestos insulation these days.
And you don't see many stoles and jackets made of endangered species
any more.

You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.


Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

Virtually ALL GUNS WERE PURCHASED LEGALLY. That's a key issue that gun
nutz refuse to address.

Exactly what I have been saying. Individuals who commit the majority
of the gun crimes do it with what might be termed "banned guns".

What guns are banned? They aren't banned. Any criminal can buy one.
Our gun laws are a joke.

Goodness, you mean there are no background checks and some bloke just
out of jail can walk right down to the gun shop and buy one? And than
apply to the state for his concealed carry permit?

But I agree about the gun laws. Perhaps the U.S. could get serious and
emulate Singapore where possession of an illegal firearm is a
mandatory death sentence.

And your argument apparently is that banning guns will reduce firearm
crimes

No, that's not my argument. I haven't made any arguments about what
should be done, or what the consequences would be. You're just making
it up in your own head.


Well, Ed, it doesn't seem to have.

Next, I assume, you will argue that "after all, if guns are banned
there won't be any here to buy", to which I will argue that "as cocoa
plants don't grow in the U.S. obviously cocaine is unobtainable here."

No, I wouldn't argue that. Only your strawman would argue that.
--
cheers,

John B.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:35:34 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

............
But I agree about the gun laws. Perhaps the U.S. could get serious
and
emulate Singapore where possession of an illegal firearm is a
mandatory death sentence.
...
--
cheers,

John B.

How do they punish drug dealers?

-jsw