Han wrote in :

Tim, I like to distance myself from the dogooders. Laws of unintended
consequences and stuff. But Sandy Hook is not the result of the left
doing anything. Sandy Hook is the result of easily available weapons,

"easily available"???

Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

a disturbed young man,

Point the blame there. Not on the weapons.

and a mother who tried to help instill self-
confidence etc in her son in the wrong way.

Total speculation on your part.

What about the absence of the father? Do you think that had anything at all to do with it?

Moreover, Mom did not
foresee what son could do with those weapons.

And she paid the price for that lack of foresight, too. Too bad that it's so hard to get
someone involuntarily commited; she was trying to do that, because she knew he was
disturbed, and apparently that's what set him off.

As far as I am concerned,
I think you and many others have shown you can handle the responsibility.
The fact of 30-odd thousand gun deaths (wasn't that the figure?) shows
that there are too many who can't. So are we calling the Aurora victims,
Sandy Hook kids and teachers, and Webster firefighters just poor
collateral damage?

Nope. I'm calling them victims of misguided feel-good policies put in place by people who
believe that passing a law prohibiting some particular behavior will thereby *prevent* that
behavior -- that designating a school as a "Gun-Free Zone" will somehow stop anyone from
bringing a gun into the building, or that prohibiting people from smoking marijuana will stop
them from toking up.

When four-year-olds think that wishes will come true, it's cute.

When adults think that way, it's delusional. And often dangerous.

Han wrote in :

Gun abolitionists can only increase victims, not criminals.

First thing you've gotten even partly right in this debate.

On 12/27/2012 03:54 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:ljluq9-0ue1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
SNIP



Again: 31,940 total U.S. deaths in 2011 due to the discharge of a firearm, of which 11,101
were homicides.


I don't know where you're getting this from. That's certainly not the FBI data. See:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20

When I sum up the guns column, I get about 8500 for 2011.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 12/27/2012 4:06 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/27/2012 12:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That
is an
undisputable fact.

He would have simply gone in with more clips, guns, or far worse yet, a
bomb. The kids would still be dead and perhaps many more.






No it's not a "fact" of any kind:

1) You don't know what he would have done had he not had access to an SA
weapon. The day after Sandy Hook, 20 people so were *knifed* in China.

2) "Military assault weapon" is an undefined and undefinable notion.
The military uses full auto, for one thing. Moreover, something isn't
more dangerous because it looks "military". This little chestnut
is just more droning from the left because they don't understand guns
as tools but instead have a sort of mystical understanding of weapons.


In related news, the fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat ...

On 27 Dec 2012 19:26:23 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han wrote:

snip

That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...

Double for the editor and publisher.


Yes, indeed. This hasn't played out yet. Someone has now done the same
thing as the newspaper did for legal gun owners for all the paper's
employees. Names, addresses, pictures. I think that went just a bit too
far since it probably includes people who had nothing to do with the
original stupid deed. Moreover, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

It does punish the newspaper, which will otherwise skate; it teaches a
lesson. Whether it'll be learned, or not...

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/27/2012 12:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a
semi-automatic military assault weapon, all those kids would
still be alive. That is an undisputable fact.

No it's not a "fact" of any kind:

1) You don't know what he would have done had he not had access to an
SA weapon. The day after Sandy Hook, 20 people so were *knifed*
in China.
2) "Military assault weapon" is an undefined and undefinable notion.
The military uses full auto, for one thing. Moreover, something
isn't more dangerous because it looks "military". This little
chestnut is just more droning from the left because they don't
understand guns as tools but instead have a sort of mystical
understanding of weapons.

Correct - the military uses assault rifles which by definition must be
selectable to include fully automatic. Assault weapon is a meaningless term
coined by the feel gooders in 1994 as part of the ban. In order to be an
assault weapon, it must include 2 of the following, and be semi-automatic...
a.. a folding or telescoping stock (clearly a very deadly feature...)
b.. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon (just looks so nasty that it must be deadly)
c.. a bayonet mount (oh... just like the ones on all of the military
surplus rifles that have been converted to hunting guns?)
d.. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
suppressor (those same threads that a muzzle brake screws on to? Yes -
very deadly...)
e.. a grenade launcher (I still don't understand how this made the list)
A perfect example of how meaningless both the term and the law really are.
Yet - there is a faction that likes to throw the term around for the
sensational value of it.

--

-Mike-

On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
fast. You've just been made a target.

Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...

Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
armed to steal one. You're amazing.

I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses, and
photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.

I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go bankrupt
within a week.

To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
How is the secretary a target?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:15:25 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Han wrote:


I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
bankrupt within a week.

It should!

It's the only way a lesson will be learned by anyone.

wrote:
On 27 Dec 2012 19:26:23 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han wrote:

snip

That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...

Double for the editor and publisher.


Yes, indeed. This hasn't played out yet. Someone has now done the
same thing as the newspaper did for legal gun owners for all the
paper's employees. Names, addresses, pictures. I think that went
just a bit too far since it probably includes people who had nothing
to do with the original stupid deed. Moreover, 2 wrongs don't make
a right.

It does punish the newspaper, which will otherwise skate; it teaches a
lesson. Whether it'll be learned, or not...

Like the newspaper said about their decision to publish the maps... "it's
important - people need to know".

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?

People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

Absolute bull****. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.


Regardless of how many AR-15 (the navy/civilian version of the Vietnam era
M-16) are currently in existence, banning future sales can only be a good
thing.

You're clueless. Exactly what does the AR-15 have that a hunting
rifle doesn't?

There are well
over a million defensive uses of guns per year.

You should cite your sources.

Look it up for yourself. You won't believe my sources anyway. But
just to prove me wrong,

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...ords=john+lott


The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have
been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the
director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the
data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the
truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are
in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go
to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence
Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."

Even the FBI estimates on the high side of that. Multiple studies are
in the 1M-2M range, but even assuming it is *only* 108,000. *ONLY?*.
Really?

You're a real piece of work.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:24:28 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 12/27/2012 01:11 PM, basilisk wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in :

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

No, it's not "undisputable fact", it's just uninformed nonsense. Or do you really suppose that
it is impossible to fatally shoot people with weapons such as a revolver, a pump-action
shotgun, or a bolt-action rifle?

In fact the largest school killing in the US was done with a bomb in 1927,
there have always been crazies and always will be.

basilisk

...and the largest mass killing of children was done in Waco.

Hmm, I wonder if there were "assault weapons" in use there?

Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:cguuq9-is3.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:

On 12/27/2012 03:54 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:ljluq9-0ue1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
SNIP



Again: 31,940 total U.S. deaths in 2011 due to the discharge of a firearm, of which 11,101
were homicides.


I don't know where you're getting this from.

I cited it in my original response to you; it's from the CDC. Here it is again:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Accident: page 41, near the bottom
Suicide: page 42, near the top
Homicide: page 42, just below suicide
Undetermined: page 42, just below homicide

That's certainly not the FBI data.

No, of course it's not. CDC reports deaths from all causes. FBI reports deaths from crimes.

See:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-in-the-u.s.-
2011/tables/table-20

When I sum up the guns column, I get about 8500 for 2011.

Nearly 8600, actually.

That is a list of *murders*. Not *homicides*. And it's still a factor of *five* higher than the
1,700 figure you cited originally. (Where did that come from, anyway?)

Besides, it's incomplete: Alabama and Florida are missing, and the footnote for the
"Murders" column specifically states that it includes only those murders "for which
supplemental homicide data were received".

Furthermore, "homicide" and "murder" are not synonyms. Murder is the intentional and
unjustified killing of another human being. Homicide is simply the killing of another human
being, without regard to intent or justification, and includes these categories:
- murder
- negligence
- justifiable homicide (e.g. in self-defense)
- accident

The FBI data you cite includes only the first of these categories.

When reporting firearms deaths, the CDC separates them according to intent: intentional vs.
accidental. The FBI isn't concerned with homicides unless they are criminal, and thus the
FBI numbers will be lower than the CDC's -- because the CDC is counting everything, and
the FBI is not.

On 12/27/2012 06:35 AM, Han wrote:


Larry, we do all kinds of things to prevent falls, accidental poisoning,
traffic accidents, and so on. But we should ignore firearms-related
deaths? Come on ... And homicide by gun is easily prevented. Get rid
of the gun.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/12/27/the-sandy-hook-horror-begs-us-to-have-the-courage-to-do-nothing/

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have
been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook,
the
director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined
the
data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the
truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about
guns are
in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go
to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on
Violence
Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to
understand what's going on."

When Gary Kleck first published his findings on defensive firearm use some
20 years ago ("Point Blank" as I recall) he explicitly stated that the area
of research would benefit from better data, better definitions, and better
research methods. As other researchers, Cook included, started looking into
this phenomena it was clear that significant numbers of defensive firearms
uses occur each year most without a shot being fired. These results pretty
well nullify the argument that "if just one life is saved by banning guns it
is worth it" as banning guns will also cost lives. We can also be sure that
among the defensive uses "assault weapons" were used...

Pull in John Lott's work (e.g., "More Guns, Less Crime") and it is clear
there is positive utility for armed civilians. Overall, armed civilians are
not a risk to society and they provide a public service by raising the
opportunity costs of crime. Given world history, they likely have utility in
maintaining our Constitutional Republic also...

There are other things lost in this discussion on firearms. One is that
handguns are generally less lethal than long guns and from a fatality
standpoint may be preferred for defensive use, i.e., stop the behavior that
led to the shooting without killing. Chicago, with a near total ban on
handguns still has a lot of shootings... children included (the term
"children" is a slippery slope as, as I recall, some have included gang
bangers up to age 20 in their data).

Over the past few decades there has been a huge increase in the number of
trauma centers around the country and improved medical treatments that
improve the odds of surviving guns shots. I think it would be fair to say
that much of the early "anti-gun" research in the medical literature was
written by people associated with the early trauma centers. Most of that
research was conducted in the near vacuum of medicine. As such, Edgar Suter
caused a political uproar in the medical journal world when his "Guns in the
Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review" was published...

The unintended consequences of eliminating one type of gun or ammunition
also changed the survivability dynamics... Saturday Night Specials have all
but disappeared from the rhetoric and the shelves of stores with the result
being that criminals use more reliable and/or more powerful arms. Ban armor
piercing ammo that can defeat body armor (a red herring scenario... recall
KTW) and soft point expanding ammo becomes the norm. One of the medical
examiners in the CT case lamented the fact that expanding ammo was used...
if full metal jacket or armor piercing ammo was used there may have been
more survivors.

The demise of mental health institutions and the lack of mental health
parity in insurance contracts leaves myriad people untreated and
unmonitored. This does not insure that all incidents can be foretold and
prevented. I personally missed one... a roommate in my off campus apartment
bombed the dormitory one night. None of the other three of us had a clue it
was coming. It was by mere chance that nobody happened to be directly in the
area of the explosion though I know someone who saw it from across the
courtyard.

Theft and black market sources of guns will not keep guns out of the hands
of goal oriented attackers such as struck Aurora, Webster and Sandy Hook. If
laws somehow did keep guns out of their hands there are alternatives...
bombs, fire, chemicals all work well when the victims are trapped in
confined spaces.

The strong positions taken on the gun issue are a huge factor in there being
a "no compromise" political environment. Don Kates wrote of this years ago
in "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle Over Gun Control."

The "sound byte" arguments and political grandstanding may feel good but
they do not address the underlying causes of violence... that being that
there are evil people out there who act either by choice or mental defect.
There are also those who are reckless and those whom suffer depression.
Having taught college level courses inside maximum security prisons I've
meet quite a number of all four types first hand... met lots of them outside
of the prisons too.

Most of the cites I mentioned above can be found on line... in full or as
summaries. ...and of course, there are the university and medical school
research libraries.There is nothing new here... most of the firearms
technology being debated is well over 100 years old as well as are the
arguments.

John
....not over 100, but have read much of the related academic literature from
myriad disciplines!

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?

People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

Absolute bull****. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.

In any case, he did not have access to a "semi-automatic military
assault weapon". It is unlawful to own an assault weapon in Connecticut
and all of the firearms used were lawfully owned in Connecticut,
therefore none of them was an "assault weapon".

On 27 Dec 2012 20:17:52 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Dec 2012 13:07:21 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 27 Dec 2012 01:36:30 GMT, Han wrote:

I had said (among other things)

those sales should be officially illegal.

Larry Jaques wrote in
om:

Generally, they already are, Han. All those boys on big-city
side- street alleys selling guns to their crazy friends aren't
walking the straight and narrow.

Geesh, than that must be true Larry (intentionally sarcastic)
Now, where did those firearms come from? In New York City "they"
(police/press, whatever) say it is because in some/many states
further south along I95 it is perfectly legal to buy a gun for most
people, and some just drive up north and sell them, or lose them.

Or they're stolen from law abiding citizens or driven across the
border. I hear the CIA imports 'em, too, not to mention certain
folks at the ATF (but they export more).

Law abiding citizens should be responsible enough to prevent theft.
If, god forbid, a weapon is stolen, that citizen should promptly
inform the aurthorities and his insurance company. If that citizen is
not responsible enough to prevent multiple weapons from being stolen,
his permit should be revoked.

I agree that arsenals should be locked, but to protect the owner's
property more than anything else. It is also good to keep weapons out
of the hands of criminals.


"Driven across border", you mean state
borders, right? That is because in some states it is much easier to
get a ewapon than in others.

No, our country borders.

The US has the armaments industry (too much right nearby in CT). I don't
thin porous borders is the main reason for loose guns.

To criminals, who can't/won't buy legal local guns, import guns are a
lot cheaper and easier to get away with.


Sure the responsibility goes up higher. However, the true shacklers
are the gun lobbyists including the NRA.

I totally and absolutely disagree. Gun lobbyists have not increased
crime one iota. Gun abolitionists _have_. Note that all massacres
seem to happen in the Left's Gun Free Zones.

The loopholes in the assault weapons ban etc were there because of gun
lobbyists. Gun abolitionists can only increase victims, not criminals.
I have no idea where all massacres happened. Tucson was not a gun free
zone, Webster wasn't. Aurora was a private theater in a gun-crazy state.

I recant my "all massacres" and revise it to "most massacres", OK?


One major reason that US violent crime has been going down since the
'90s is thanks to your Left. They got abortions legalized. The rest
is history. Thank you for that. (Unwanted/unloved/unrestrained
children turn rancid.) Please note that this is one of the very, very
few things I agree about with the Left.

As I said, it started around Giuliani's time, whether or not demographics
was more important or increased minor crime fighting. Meither can be
"blamed" on the left.

g


Yes indeed, kids should be loved, but that is difficult to enforce.

It sure should be, especially in deep urban settings, where the child
welfare people are on every block every day, anyway. sigh


Have to go pay attention to kids and grandkids ...

Goodonya, Han.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.

No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
cars is NOT armed.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:25:41 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:24:50 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such
as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I
think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the
people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask?

People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit
tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue).

If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic
military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an
undisputable fact.

Absolute bull****. First, define "assault weapon". you can't.

In any case, he did not have access to a "semi-automatic military
assault weapon". It is unlawful to own an assault weapon in Connecticut
and all of the firearms used were lawfully owned in Connecticut,
therefore none of them was an "assault weapon".

Clearly his definition varies from the CT legal definition and the
military definition. These aren't the point. The left doesn't care
what the accepted definition of anything is. All words and ideas are
relative so any discussion is like trying to build a building with
silly putty (in every sense). When cornered, they'll simply redefine
themselves out of it (see; Clinton). I want his definition of
"assault weapon" before listening to any more of his bull****.

On 27 Dec 2012 19:47:12 GMT, Han wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
:

On 12/27/2012 07:16 AM, Han wrote:
The US has
an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civili

3) "Enormously larger" - Better check your math. There are something
like 1700 deaths by gun per year in the US. There are 30,000+
auto accidents. Why do You And Yours not focus on the single
most dangerous thing threatening American lives: Small, light
cars driving at expressway speeds. We need laws to make sure
everyone is forced to drive 5000 pound SUVs because it "saves
lives".

Apples and oranges. Compare gun-related violence here and abroad. that
is the comparison. As I said, we are trying to do things about
automobile accidents and negligence. Does that exempt firearms from
attention?

That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.



Your position is irrational. There are something like 300 million
guns in the country and 1700 deaths by criminals, but you want to
punish the 99.9999999999999999% of gun owners that are completely
responsible.

I am in favor of gun owners being responsible (obviously!). However,
something needs to be done to prevent repeats of Newtown and Webster.
While it may make sense for everyone in rural Nebraska who is hours away
from police and other first responders to have the means of selfdefense,
I don't think it is a good idea in cities or suburbs. Mrs. Lanza showed
that. So we are back to where we were. Ideally there would be no idiots
with high power rifles. How to prevent them from getting them??

Again, why the focus on guns which are used to commit less than two
percent of the crimes? (I correct my earlier figure of 2.8%) So
_many_ different things kill more people every day.


The Ant-Gun Movement: Where reason, sanity, and careful thought
go to die.

I think you meant to say anti-gun. I meant this discussion to be polite
and educational. I have certainly learned some things. Unfortunately, I
still conclude that there is no need for Bushmaster-type rifles and high
capacity magazines for them.

Perhaps not for yourself...yet. wink But if you had a mob coming
down the street, burning houses on their way, you might wish you had a
carbine, a very large stock of ammo, and a ****load of magazines.
(bullet holders) Riots do happen in your neck of the woods, and I
think there might be more on the way.


P.S. I think the sanctimonious and self-important gun banners
should be consistent in their demands because they want
to "Save The Children (tm)":

http://www.allmax.com/MILT/

We are waiting for the agency responsible for regulating table saw safety
to make rulings ... And indeed, stupid people like myself could have
hurt themselves even more than I did myself, and a Sawstop might have
prevented some of that.

When it's made illegal to hurt oneself, we'll all own SaurSchtopps,
I'm sure.


P.S: Don't forget to stop by another ban shop here, Han.
Save the Chillens! Ban this dangerous drug! http://www.dhmo.org/

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:55:20 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/27/2012 11:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from
year to year, but these are the figures for last year:

You're right - I should have stipulated homicides since I do not
believe suicide should be classified as a gun "crime". The

With the stats for the gangs in there, I'll bet the non-gang homicide
number is closer to one thousand. Rule out suicide and gang death and
we have a very, very much smaller figure about which ten percent of
the population is (neuroticly) up in arms (so to speak) over. Yes, I
feel that 1,000 deaths are too many, but people are mean. Make gang
membership a crime punishable by death (since it usually is, anyway)
Kill them before they kill us. shrug


person in question will - tragically - find some way or another
with or without a gun.

Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either
Marlboros, or Big Macs.

Yeah, those...and MDs. http://tinyurl.com/3t9nyr


OK, fine. But my point stands. The antigunners are attacking a non
problem by punishing the uninvolved and thereby not affecting
the actual criminal perpetrators.

Yeah, that's the worst part.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.

No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

Wrong again. Guns stop crime. They stop between one and two million
crimes a year.

Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
cars is NOT armed.

Strawman.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:16:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 12/27/2012 06:35 AM, Han wrote:


Larry, we do all kinds of things to prevent falls, accidental poisoning,
traffic accidents, and so on. But we should ignore firearms-related
deaths? Come on ... And homicide by gun is easily prevented. Get rid
of the gun.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/12/27/the-sandy-hook-horror-begs-us-to-have-the-courage-to-do-nothing/

Wow, what an excellent article!

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On 27 Dec 2012 19:56:39 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Thinking about problems is a good thing, but you obviously don't
know what laws already exist and how effective or ineffective they
are.

Mike, please tell me how the guns come into the city? I know they
are ineffective, and I know we can't possibly get it all totally 100%
right. But the current laws aren't working. And I think it is more
the laxity of laws elsewhere and the loopholes in the federal
statutes that are the cause.

Han - when have you ever seen a law that the criminal element
respected? Almost everything you've said in this conversation has been
about legal and responsible gun owners and your desire to further
limit their ownership of guns. And then you wander off talking about
things that are already illegal, and are being done by criminals who
hold no regard for the law, and you think more laws is going to change
that? Really?

You're unwilling to see what is clear to me. The current system with its
many loopholes is making it too easy for the criminals and wannabee
criminals to get the guns. What is worse, that 20 kids and 6 of their
teachers are now dead, or that John Gunowner increases his safekeeping of
his guns?

And you're unwilling to see what is perfectly clear to me. You keep
attacking guns and lawful owners as if -they're- to blame. You fail
to see that criminals will find guns, knives, clubs, rocks, chisels,
screwdrivers, or hammers wherever they can. Criminals will use these
things whenever they want, despite whatever silly laws are in effect.

Even if your dreams came true and every single legally owned and
registered EVIL GUN was taken out of our hands and melted down,
tomorrow would be a red letter day in the life of criminals. You see,
all their guns would be black market, and the number coming across the
borders (from Mexico and Canada) would increase 100-fold to keep up
with their wants and needs. Only NOW, with all the rest of us
disarmed, they'd do anything and everything they wanted all day long.
Are you happy now?

By the way, a crazy with a machete could walk into a crowd and take
down twenty or thirty people about as fast as a criminal with a gun.
Terrorism is entirely unstoppable, with or without guns in the mix.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

wrote:
On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
b.com:

On 12/26/2012 06:50 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:26:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/25/2012 08:20 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote
in
:

Han wrote:


Someone thought it was a "good idea" to exempt gun
shows from
the need for background checks. I really don't
know how to
keep a crazy guy from getting a gun in a country
(apparently)
awash in them.


Politicians like Bloomberg like to tout the
loopholes in the
law as they relate to gun shows, but it pays to dig
a bit
deeper. Dealers are required to perform NICS
checks - even at
gun shows. Private individuals are not. So if you
show up to
sell a gun, there is no requirement for a NICS
check. So - gun
shows are not exempt from background checks.

So the loophole is a little more complicated. The
dealer just
has to sell the gun to a bystander who would not
fail a
background check. This individual can then just
sell the gun
to someone who would fail a background check. I
seem to recall
a TV report from one of the major networks, where
there were
plenty of people willing to sell a gun to someone
who wouldn't
pass a background check. I thin those sales should
be
officially illegal. Period.



Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do?
Have you so
little regard for shooter in the US that you think
they
intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are
unstable or
criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the
most law
abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the
media that are
the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people
to buy into
those lies....

...and carrying illegal weapons in DC.

I indeed think that CNN reporter should be issued a
summons and if
found guilty, he should NOT get off easy. Obviously if
he had a
cardboard copy, that may be an extenuating
circumstance. I also
think that (if he had a real working magazine) the
person who gave
or sold it to him should go to jail.

Btw, while it may have been legal to publish all those
names and
addresses of legal firearm owners in Westchester and
Rockland
counties, it was at least highly unethical. That
newspaper editor
and journalist need to go for aggravated stupidity.

Perhaps it would even the score to publish the names and
addresses
of all those folks who had no firearms?

This was (I read this, but didn't check) published as a
map. So
every home not listed as having a registered gun owner
had either a
homeowner without a gun, or with an illegal gun. When
you go out
harvesting loot, pray you pick the "right" home ...

That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...

Double for the editor and publisher.

Well, they are finding out that it works both ways.
This was done by a blogger. The old media will just have to
learn that they are
not the only ones with a big stick anymore.


https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=...m&source=embed


Whats good for the goose......

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a
rifle and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's
their gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.

No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

I just don't see where education and training does an awful lot to reduce
crime.


Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
cars is NOT armed.

Nor are/were the guns used by the headline murderers that have been
referenced in this debate. That kind of dismisses your point on that front
Clare. As well, the general citizenry here in the US is not armed while
walking the streets or driving their car. Even amongst those who are gun
owners. So - what is the point you are trying to make?

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
@dont-email.me:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
"many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
liability insurance?

What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
have to do with it Han?

Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
that insurance.

I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.

Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"ChairMan" wrote in
:

wrote:
On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han
wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
b.com:

On 12/26/2012 06:50 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:26:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/25/2012 08:20 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote
in
:

Han wrote:


Someone thought it was a "good idea" to exempt gun
shows from
the need for background checks. I really don't
know how to
keep a crazy guy from getting a gun in a country
(apparently)
awash in them.


Politicians like Bloomberg like to tout the
loopholes in the
law as they relate to gun shows, but it pays to dig
a bit
deeper. Dealers are required to perform NICS
checks - even at
gun shows. Private individuals are not. So if you
show up to
sell a gun, there is no requirement for a NICS
check. So - gun
shows are not exempt from background checks.

So the loophole is a little more complicated. The
dealer just
has to sell the gun to a bystander who would not
fail a
background check. This individual can then just
sell the gun
to someone who would fail a background check. I
seem to recall
a TV report from one of the major networks, where
there were
plenty of people willing to sell a gun to someone
who wouldn't
pass a background check. I thin those sales should
be
officially illegal. Period.



Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do?
Have you so
little regard for shooter in the US that you think
they
intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are
unstable or
criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the
most law
abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the
media that are
the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people
to buy into
those lies....

...and carrying illegal weapons in DC.

I indeed think that CNN reporter should be issued a
summons and if
found guilty, he should NOT get off easy. Obviously if
he had a
cardboard copy, that may be an extenuating
circumstance. I also
think that (if he had a real working magazine) the
person who gave
or sold it to him should go to jail.

Btw, while it may have been legal to publish all those
names and
addresses of legal firearm owners in Westchester and
Rockland
counties, it was at least highly unethical. That
newspaper editor
and journalist need to go for aggravated stupidity.

Perhaps it would even the score to publish the names and
addresses
of all those folks who had no firearms?

This was (I read this, but didn't check) published as a
map. So
every home not listed as having a registered gun owner
had either a
homeowner without a gun, or with an illegal gun. When
you go out
harvesting loot, pray you pick the "right" home ...

That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ...

Double for the editor and publisher.

Well, they are finding out that it works both ways.
This was done by a blogger. The old media will just have to
learn that they are
not the only ones with a big stick anymore.


https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=...8814533.0004d1
c39ceef0f9f292a&gl=us&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.96953,-73.855591&spn=0.379541
,0.222049&t=m&source=embed


Whats good for the goose......

My impression was that all employees of the paper were listed. Thanks
goodness that was not the case. I applaud the blogger for mentioning
policy setting officials and editors only.

Mea culpa for misinterpreting.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in :

On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
m:

If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
fast. You've just been made a target.

Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...

Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
armed to steal one. You're amazing.

I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses,
and photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.

I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
bankrupt within a week.

To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
How is the secretary a target?

This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have done.
It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the Rangers sports
guy was mentioned, I don't know.

He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper folds
....

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.

Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
crowded streets.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote in :

Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.

Han, what purpose do you suppose that would serve? Do you *really* believe that the criminal
element would comply with such a requirement? If so, please explain why you believe that.

Han wrote in :


Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
crowded streets.

Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will
have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs.
Seriously.

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in
:


Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't
sniper- like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just
plain on crowded streets.

Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms
(since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the
funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously.

Fully agree with your last statement.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:kbi9p2$mqs$1 @dont-email.me:



I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.

Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.

Sorry Han - I meant that your reasoning for requiring it made no sense. I
understood that you preferred it was a requirement.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have
done. It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the
Rangers sports guy was mentioned, I don't know.

He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper
folds ...

Well... the paper did not think about the reprecutions of their publication
now, did they?

FWIW, I may be wrong but I thought the original blogger only posted map info
on those newspaper employees that were responsible for (contributed to) the
publication of the original gun owner's map. I had understood that others
subsequently extended that map to include all of the newspaper's employees.

--

-Mike-

On 12/27/2012 10:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:16:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 12/27/2012 06:35 AM, Han wrote:


Larry, we do all kinds of things to prevent falls, accidental poisoning,
traffic accidents, and so on. But we should ignore firearms-related
deaths? Come on ... And homicide by gun is easily prevented. Get rid
of the gun.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/12/27/the-sandy-hook-horror-begs-us-to-have-the-courage-to-do-nothing/

Wow, what an excellent article!

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

Here's another:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html?utm_source=12-27-12&utm_campaign=AT+Newsletter+12-27-12&utm_medium=email


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 12/28/2012 6:47 AM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

[snip]

But - you would have the person who sold the guns in the recent
tragedies, held responsible.

Mike, yes, I would. Selling these types of weapons comes with the
responsibility to know who you are selling them too. Or are you going to
give drug pushers a pass, because it is really the users who are the
criminals?

Han,

Several issues with your insurance idea immediately come to mind.

First, as others have pointed out, the criminal element is NOT going
purchase insurance. They are not obeying the law regarding guns, so now
we'll have them buy insurance? C'mon. We make (in most states) car
drivers purchase vehicle registrations, insurance, driver's licenses.
We still have some of the same people committing criminal acts: DUI,
Vehicular Homicide...

Second, it is against public policy (and therefore illegal) for an
insurer to indemnify a criminal act. Read through the fine print on ANY
insurance policy you may have. I happen to carry a $1,000,000
comprehensive general liability policy which specifically covers
firearms. I hope to hell that I NEVER have to have them defend me on a
claim where my defense is self defense. That is about all the coverage
they will afford me under the policy. If I pull the trigger and I'm in
the wrong or charged as being "wrong" I will find myself on my own. So,
even if we could make them buy insurance, it would be for nothing.

Third, by "Criminal Types" I presume you mean somebody who can be
identified as such, not just some speculative assumption that "hey!
That guy MIGHT commit a crime someday if he thinks he can get away with
it." News flash! Criminal Types (such as convicted felons) are already
barred, for life, from owning or possessing firearms, so even if the
insurance was required and WOULD cover a criminal act, they couldn't buy
it in the first place. Don't believe it? Go on-line to ANY of the
insurance companies and ask for a quote on auto insurance. Be sure and
tell them that your driver's license has been revoked and ask them what
kind of policy they will issue to you.

As for holding the gun seller responsible...

They MUST run a background check through law enforcement before selling
the gun. If law enforcement cannot prevent the sale because they have
no clue as to what the person MIGHT do in the future, how can you
possibly hold the seller responsible if he's complied with the law in
that respect? If he sells one under the counter, to a known criminal or
gang banger, sure. Sue is a** off. Arrest him. All this is
permissible under the current status of the law.

Otherwise, if you want to make them responsible for merely making a
legal sale when something jumps the tracks two or five years down the
road with the purchaser, let's go after the car dealerships, etc. as
well. They had just as much knowledge about what the drive MIGHT do in
two or five years as the gun seller did.

On 28 Dec 2012 12:56:30 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

On 27 Dec 2012 19:29:43 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in
:

If your name didn't appear in the paper, you'd better get a weapon,
fast. You've just been made a target.

Unless the criminals want to get the guns ...

Good grief, Han. If they want weapons, they'll go downtown and buy
one on the corner. They WON'T break into a house where people are
armed to steal one. You're amazing.

I think it was right on "target" to publish the names, addresses,
and photographs of the newspaper employees. Sauce for the gander.

I disagree. The circulation desk secretary had no say in the original
misdeed. Now she/he is a target. This newspaper is going to go
bankrupt within a week.

To bad. The legally registered gun owners did nothing wrong either.
How is the secretary a target?

This was my misinterpretation of what the blogger was said to have done.
It was "only" higher ups at the paper. Although, why the Rangers sports
guy was mentioned, I don't know.

He (and the others mentioned) are now a target for people angry at the
paper for publishing that map plus personal details of gun permit
holders. They may have to seek other employment if/when the paper folds
...
Too bad. Women hiding from their violent spouses were "outed" too. Do
you really thing every "gun nut" is going to go to each of the
addresses listed and off the residents? There is, however, a finite
chance that some of the abuse victims will die. Your tears are on the
wrong end of this deal.

On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
"many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
liability insurance?

What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
have to do with it Han?

Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
that insurance.

I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.

Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.

OK, why, specifically, would liability insurance be necessary and how
would it be used? Why are you offering this added billions of dollars
of windfall to the insurance companies and why do you wish to thrust
it upon so many law-abiding citizens against their will?

Several hundreds of millions of weapons are handled every year without
incident. Why would you change that? Just because you don't like
guns? How would it protect against misuse by those few who do?
Remember, only the law-abiding folks would be forced to buy insurance.
None of the criminals would have it or get it. How would it change
anything or stop crime? Answer: It would not and could not.

I believe in teaching all children to swim at an early age so they
never have the chance to drown. I'd add weapons handling to that
training, for people of all ages, if I were in charge. Especially for
the cops who keep shooting innocent bystanders. Why aren't you
lamenting over (and vocal activist against) that instead of trying to
bankrupt us law-abiding citizens who never shoot anyone, Han?

BTW, where are you getting your information which points you in this
direction, anyway? That needs to be looked into, for all our sakes.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

On 28 Dec 2012 13:00:55 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
That's one of the reasons I want to see the gang killing stats
separated from the rest. It's the larger majority of homicides. Once
we can see those clearly, maybe you anti-gun folks will go after the
idiots in gangs instead of us non criminal gun owners who don't commit
crimes. Cops and DAs won't like that, though. We're much easier to
catch and try than the real criminals because we've done nothing
wrong. That won't always be the case, though. If the gun banners
come for all our weapons, don't be surprised if the majority of gun
owning Americans flatly refuse to give them up.

Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper-
like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on
crowded streets.

Change "very often" to "sometimes" and I'm with you. I believe most
gang members are a waste of oxygen and would deal with them severely.
And, like I said, once we separate the real shootings from the gang
shootings in the statistics, you'd see my point a lot more easily.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87Q04X20120827
ALL bystanders wounded by police. HERE I can see the need for
liability insurance, to cover the misses. Then again, civilian
samaritans much less often miss their targets. If I were Bloomberg,
or most any city mayor/police chief, I'd have every cop with a gun in
triple training sessions for the next year, at least.

--
You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others,
or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are.
-- Jeph Jacques

Larry Jaques wrote:


I believe in teaching all children to swim at an early age so they
never have the chance to drown. I'd add weapons handling to that
training, for people of all ages, if I were in charge. Especially for
the cops who keep shooting innocent bystanders. Why aren't you
lamenting over (and vocal activist against) that instead of trying to
bankrupt us law-abiding citizens who never shoot anyone, Han?


I was thinking about this very thing, but decided not to interject it into
the discussion, but Larry did us the favor. Han - look for the statistics
on the number of mistaken shootings by LEO as compared to private citizens.
Look at it any way you wish - in raw numbers, by percentages, or any other
way. You will find that your confidence in LEO's to protect you rather than
protecting yourself is ill placed confidence. More collateral damage is
done by LEO's when they pull their guns than by private citizens - by a
large number. Go out to a gun range and watch your typical LEO shoot side
by side with an average gun owner and observe the difference in skill. The
LEO typically fails miserably. I'm not talking about specialty agents here,
such as SWAT members - average LEO's, across any police force. Their once
or twice a year qualifying on a range at 7 yards, does nothing to make them
competent with that weapon. The number of rounds they discharge in an event
would embarass any competent shooter. Yet - those such as yourself place
your trust in them to be there to help you. If you needed help, you'd stand
as good a chance of being the victim of his shooting as would the
perpetrator of the crime. If you can even expect the LEO to get to you.
The difference is that if an LEO shoots you by mistake, it gets
investigated, and then is determined to be "justified".


--

-Mike-