|
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:03:54 -0500, "Rich Schultz"
wrote: What about 12 ga flare pistols fitted with a metal insert for .410 ga shotgun shells? Why bother with .410? 12ga. minishells are much better. they are available in buckshot and slugs Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Leanne wrote: I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions should be made with a bit of discretion. We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Leanne Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under. Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than than a criminal. Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a liability. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented. About 750 accidental shootings took place. Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing themselves or others. The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be done as many means are available. Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to kill people and the environment without human intervention! :) So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery. Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. |
"Brian Whatcott" wrote ...
"Doug Dotson" wrote: When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice of confucious: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubts. I believe that this quote came from Samuel Johnson. But as Confucious actually said: " To know is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge." K'ung-fu-tzu or Kongfuzi is usually rendered in English as Confucius And in modern standard Chinese he's known as Kongzi. The appellation 'Kongfuzi' seems to have only been recorded once in Chinese. Some have suggested it may have been a creation of Jesuit scholars. Cheers Bil |
Greg wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Leanne wrote: I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions should be made with a bit of discretion. We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Leanne Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under. Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than than a criminal. Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a liability. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented. About 750 accidental shootings took place. Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing themselves or others. The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense. The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful. The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof alone that gun ownership is dangerous. The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be done as many means are available. Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide. Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will not be a gun handy. Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems to be an suicide risk. Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's ****ed you ran over his trash can again. In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds of killing a friend in a barroom fight. The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to kill people and the environment without human intervention! :) So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery. Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that arming everyone makes you safer. The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:33:21 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote: In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds of killing a friend in a barroom fight. Only if you are a criminal. It is illegal to carry a gun into a bar in Georgia, even with a weapons carry permit Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit,
Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? Jeff Morris wrote: Greg wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Leanne wrote: I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions should be made with a bit of discretion. We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Leanne Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under. Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than than a criminal. Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a liability. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented. About 750 accidental shootings took place. Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing themselves or others. The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense. The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful. The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof alone that gun ownership is dangerous. The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be done as many means are available. Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide. Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will not be a gun handy. Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems to be an suicide risk. Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's ****ed you ran over his trash can again. In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds of killing a friend in a barroom fight. The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to kill people and the environment without human intervention! :) So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery. Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that arming everyone makes you safer. The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. |
Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are
not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were
southen cities. Get a life. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot
of the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable. "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Greg wrote: "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Leanne wrote: I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions should be made with a bit of discretion. We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Leanne Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under. Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than than a criminal. Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a liability. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented. About 750 accidental shootings took place. Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing themselves or others. The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense. The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful. The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof alone that gun ownership is dangerous. The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be done as many means are available. Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide. Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will not be a gun handy. Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems to be an suicide risk. Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's ****ed you ran over his trash can again. In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds of killing a friend in a barroom fight. The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to kill people and the environment without human intervention! :) So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery. Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that arming everyone makes you safer. The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. |
"I Carry" wrote in message ... About 5 years ago, just before Christmas, my son was car jacked coming home from an evening with his friends. He was on the way home, pulled over to buy some gas and continued on his way. When he stopped at a stop sign, the car jacker jumped in the passenger door with a gun in his hand. He ordered my son to drive giving him directions. During the "ride" the car jacker was leaning out of the passenger window wildly pointing the gun at passing cars and people on the street. After getting to the car jacker's destination, he told my son to stop. Then he demanded my son take off his new and expensive leather coat. My son is a weight lifter and extremely strong. At that point, my son did something quite stupid. Rather than taking off his jacket, he reached over to the car jacker and grabbed him intending to beat the hell out of him. During the struggle, the car jacker managed to get off a shot. The bullet went through my son's neck and lodged in the opposite shoulder where it still is today. The bullet just grazed his neckbone and missed the major arteries and esophagous. A fraction of an inch either way and he would have been dead. The car jacker then jumped out of the car and got into another car and drove away. Witnesses heard the struggle and got the other cars description. My son stepped on the gas to drive away. He made it about a block or so when he started to lose conciousness and crashed into a tree. He was able to get out of the car and went to the nearest house to call for help. He knocked at the door, told the homeowner he had been shot and needed help. The homeowner told him to get out or he would shoot him again. He went to a second house calling for help. At the second house he lost conciousness on the porch and that was where the ambulance picked him up. I'll not bother with the rest of the story including the total incompetance of the police department (that is a story in it's own). Trust me when I tell you that police departments don't give a damn and can be prejudiced when the detective is the same race as the car jacker. This includes lying by the detective on his final report. Think a little bit about how my wife and I reacted when we got the call from the hospital. Think about the agony a parent suffers when there is the real possibility that your child might not make it. The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the receiving end. Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. I hope you have also learned to lock your doors when driving. |
JR Gilbreath wrote:
Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. Get a life. Get an education. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However,
there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider credible. Doug Dotson wrote: Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot of the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable. "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Greg wrote: |
I Carry wrote:
.... The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the receiving end. Or, your son would be dead. I have a similar story: A very close friend was hitchhiking and got picked up by some kids who had just been rejected from the Hell's Angels. As he got out they shot him in the back of the head, just to prove how tough they were. The gun, of course, was the kid's father's, and was kept in the house for "protection." Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. Let me guess: you live in Georgia. |
In article ,
"Dag Stenberg" wrote: Bruce in Alaska wrote: I NEVER travel without a firearm, period. ... Stay away from Sweden then. Dag Stenberg I have never want to go to Sweden, and certainly wouldn't violate any local laws just to visit some place that I have never want to go. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ |
Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you
keep you head. Jeff Morris wrote: JR Gilbreath wrote: Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. Get a life. Get an education. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:24:22 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote: That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider credible. In other words, it disagrees with your preconceived notions. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:33:30 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote: I Carry wrote: ... The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the receiving end. Or, your son would be dead. I have a similar story: A very close friend was hitchhiking and got picked up by some kids who had just been rejected from the Hell's Angels. As he got out they shot him in the back of the head, just to prove how tough they were. The gun, of course, was the kid's father's, and was kept in the house for "protection." Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. Let me guess: you live in Georgia. and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners? Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you
claim now. JR Gilbreath wrote: Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you keep you head. Jeff Morris wrote: JR Gilbreath wrote: Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. Get a life. Get an education. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
I'm hearing a common theme. driving with doors unlocked, hitchhiking.
Anyone that doesn;t take responibility for their own safety cannot blame anyone but themselves. Doug "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... I Carry wrote: ... The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the receiving end. Or, your son would be dead. I have a similar story: A very close friend was hitchhiking and got picked up by some kids who had just been rejected from the Hell's Angels. As he got out they shot him in the back of the head, just to prove how tough they were. The gun, of course, was the kid's father's, and was kept in the house for "protection." Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. Let me guess: you live in Georgia. |
Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm
not going to waste any more time with him. Jeff Morris wrote: So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you claim now. JR Gilbreath wrote: Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you keep you head. Jeff Morris wrote: JR Gilbreath wrote: Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. Get a life. Get an education. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support
the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of evidence that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed. Doug "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider credible. Doug Dotson wrote: Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot of the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable. "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Greg wrote: |
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:06:28 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of evidence that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed. Doug None of the current gun laws really address the use of guns in crimes. If they focused on criminal use of guns as opposed to the possession of weapons in general they would probably have more effect. If criminals knew that merely having a gun on them while committing a felony meant life without parole, quickly you would see that many criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences. The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems common sense to me. Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all - criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'? A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message. Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to protect yourself. I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave socialism. This may work for some things, but not for personal safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent part of that. Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither do you. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
When I was in Alaska (Kaktovik, north slope area), I bought a little
nylon stock Remmington 22. I really liked that thing and decided to bring it back to Calif with me on vaction where my home was. I didn't have a proper gun case, so I wrapped it in a towel and taped it up a bit. At the time, firearms on aircraft was making the news. This was the late 60's. When I boarded the aircraft (C-46) in Kaktovik, I thought I'd be nice, and check with the pilot. I asked him where I should put it, and he looked a bit puzzled at my question. Finally, he suggested placing it between my seat and the window...if that was OK with me. When I got to Fairbanks, I asked again. The response from the pilot was that while a pain to worry about , we'd better play the game and put it in the cockpit. In Anchorage, people were more business-like about it, but still not overly concerned. By the time I got to San Francisco, and checked in, declaring my firearm, you would have thought I was toting a sack of rattlesnakes, and just looking for an excuse to set them loose. One person, (airline worker), actually held it between thumb and forefinger, and held it away from his body as if expecting it to go off any minute. The final hop, a commuter, was piloted by an AirForce vet. He said to do whatever...he could have cared less. So it's a matter of perception, isn't it? Would I have one on my boat? I honestly don't know...but probably not...the San Juan and Gulf Islands area isn't a war zone....:) So no reason to have one aboard. Norm B who grew up with guns, and has all the emotional reaction at seeing one as he would a toaster., and yes, I've twice had one pointed at me at close range. |
What's that matter? Sarcasm lost on you?
Frankly, you seemed to be trying make a point, but your lack of communication skills have made that impossible. JR Gilbreath wrote: Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm not going to waste any more time with him. Jeff Morris wrote: So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you claim now. JR Gilbreath wrote: Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you keep you head. Jeff Morris wrote: JR Gilbreath wrote: Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. Get a life. Get an education. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. Jeff Morris wrote: Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. JR Gilbreath wrote: In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:29:09 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote: wrote: ... and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners? What makes you say that? I think it was the "you must be from Georgia" remark you made to another poster you disagreed with. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:24:22 -0500, Jeff Morris wrote: That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider credible. In other words, it disagrees with your preconceived notions. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) John Lott has been discredited by gun rights supporters, not opponents. He has done such things as fabricate data, quote nonexistent surveys, and use unsound methods for analysis. One of his first detractors was the right-wing Washington Times. His creation of an Internet persona named Mary Rosh to sing his own praise and denigrate his opponents was, in the words of a guns rights reporter, "beyond creepy." The problem is, people who don't care about the truth continue to claim Lott as a credible source. http://www.vdare.com/malkin/johnlott.htm |
|
|
|
"I Carry" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: I'm hearing a common theme. driving with doors unlocked, hitchhiking. Anyone that doesn;t take responibility for their own safety cannot blame anyone but themselves. Doug Rest snipped for brevity. The common theme is that the criminals have the right to try to harm us and if we don't properly protect ourselves, it is our own fault? Yup, but I don't see criminals or anybody else having a "right" to harm anybody. Everybody has a right and responsibility to protect themselves. The car in this case was a vintage Ford Mustang. Manual doorlocks. Forgetting to lock your doors after dropping your friends off makes the car jacker attempt OK. It was my son's fault for not locking the door. Don't want to trample on a car jacker's constitutional rights to attempt it so it has to be my son's fault. Has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with protecting one's self. There are bad people out there. Taking precautions increases one's chances of survival. My house has "low" windows. I suppose a house robber has the constitutional right to attempt to rob my house. If he succeeds, it is my fault because I don't have steel bars over the windows. Once again rights have nothing to do with. Not sure how the Constitution figures into this discussion. OK, it's not your fault that you are dead. Feel better that you were right? If you live in an area where home invasion is likely to happen, then lock your doors, put up bars, or whatever. Your safety is your responsibility. The lady that gets raped on her way back to her car in the mall parking lot had it coming. Of course not. That is a different sutuation. But I would hope she has learned self defense, is carrying pepper spray, or a gun. The rapist has constitutional rights to try to attack her. There's that Consitiutional thing again. No one has a constitutional right to hurt anybody except in the case of self defense. She was not a karate black belt and didn't have pepper spray at her fingertips to ward off the attack. She would be better prepared if she did. There is a reason they call them "bad guys". They don't play be the rules of proper conduct. The car that got stolen from the same mall parking lot was the owner's fault. No, but the owner is the one that no longer has a car. The owner didn't have a proper burglar alarm system installed nor did he have a contract for GPS tracking of the vehicle. Yup. So his car is now gone. The car thief had the constitutional right to steal the car, the car owner didn't protect it properly so it is the car owner's fault. There's that constitution thing again. What do any of your arguments have to do with Constitutional Rights? It all has to do with personal responsibility. If you want to stay alive and keep your stuff, you have to take steps to do so. Has nothing to do with Rights, it has to do with reality. I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their nefarious deeds and it is up to the potential victim to take whatever steps are required to protect himself and prevent the crime or it is the victim's fault. Once again, it has nothing to do with Rights, it has to do with the reality of the world. It is your responsibility to protect your life and property because no one else will. If you think the Government is doing it you are fooling yourself. |
"I Carry" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, wrote: On 20 Feb 2005 00:23:22 -0000, er (I Carry) wrote: I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their nefarious deeds and it is up to the potential victim to take whatever steps are required to protect himself and prevent the crime or it is the victim's fault. Certainly its not the victim's fault but we do have responsibilities that go along with being free and primary is to take care of ourselves. Guns are a part of that equation for many of us. If someone doesn't believe in using a gun, then they are responsible to use other means to keep themselves safe. Not responsible to someone else, but responsible to themselves. Nobody else is going to take care of us. Not the police certainly. They will not be there when bad things happen. You can count on the police coming after the fact and perhaps finding the criminal and perhaps doing little or nothing. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) My point. That is one of the reasons I now carry (Ohio recently passed the right to carry law). No kids at home so I do keep a firearm within ready reach in the bedroom. A trusty old .357 magnum loaded with semi wadcutters (I reload all of my own shells). I have been a gun owner for over 40 years. I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds. I am a life long member of the NRA. Good. That the spirit! In the mall I mentioned, over a 1,000 cars a year are stolen. It is not reported because it would be "bad for business". Business trumps safety every time. Not too long ago, a serial rapist was working the mall parking lot. It wasn't until victim 16 that it made the newspapers. The police needed help solving the crime. Why wasn't it reported earlier? "Bad for business". Probably. I happen to believe that we are our own first line of defense. We must take precautions to protect ourselves. Exactly. My son was a victim, but hardly through his own fault. Forgetting to lock a car door does not excuse the car jacker and I as the parent have many "choice words" for those that would say otherwise. I'm truly sorry for your loss. But it is a fact that if the doors were locked then this tragety might have been avoided. Nothing excuses a criminal from anything. It is that one is responsible to as much as possible to insure one's safety. I'd be carrying if The Peoples Republic Of Maryland would allow it. Doug |
wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:06:28 -0500, "Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote: Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of evidence that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed. Doug None of the current gun laws really address the use of guns in crimes. If they focused on criminal use of guns as opposed to the possession of weapons in general they would probably have more effect. If criminals knew that merely having a gun on them while committing a felony meant life without parole, quickly you would see that many criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences. I doubt it. There is a reason they are called criminals. Studies have shown that when a criminal commits a crime, he/she pretty much never considers the consequences. We have many laws that make penalties harsher when a gun is even carried let alone used. Makes no real difference. The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems common sense to me. Same thanig happened in Britain. Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all - criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'? Exactly! Who was it said that "An armed society is a polite society"? A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message. Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to protect yourself. Absolutely!!! I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave socialism. Which is a absolute failure there and most anyplace it has been attempted. This may work for some things, but not for personal safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent part of that. You are correct, sir! Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither do you. We have to live in the reality of this world, warts and all. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
Doug Dotson wrote:
Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. snip you didn't see Bowling for Columbine did you. put aside all the ad hominem invective reserved for American patriot Michael Moore and suggest reasons why all of the countries mentioned in the film have; severe restrictions on gun ownership and coincidentally violent crime rates that range from 10 to 100 times lower per capita than the USA, including your country's best friend by the way and No, it's not the UK |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... snip The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. Oh that's silly. What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the average joe on the street. I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun today, you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter nonsense. Again, using the statistics that you posted, criminals and insane people account for the majority of all firearm related events. In short, "crazy" people, because only crazy people murder others - or themselves. Yet you would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves, family, and friends. Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics, if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from gun violence. With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting individual. So, do you consistently apply your logic to most things in your life, or just guns? Or do you have reason to fear your family members? |
I was following the controversy about carrying guns in airline
cockpits for a while and some interesting things came up. My own personal experience working in a hospital emergency room confirmed some stuff that came from law enforcement sources that guns are not actually a very good way to stop someone quickly. If you are an expert shot, maybe, but the average nervous scared person probably won't so much good if they actually pull the trigger. The law enforcement source said the rule of thumb is that, once someone is inside (I think) a 30 foot radius, the holes you are likely to make will not slow the attacker down enough to prevent them from hurting or killing you. When I worked in the emergency room, we had someone come in saying that he wasn't feeling quite right. The checked him out and could find nothing wrong. He went out to call a cab and dropped dead. Then they found the hole. Guns may be good for keeping people off your boat and that probably requires something big and intimidating like a shotgun. Once they are aboard they may be too close. Stun guns OTH, according to what I was reading about aircraft, stop attackers instantly. They might be a better choice for a boat. A female friend of mine used to drive alone through very bad areas of New York years ago. Her boyfriend gave her a small gun and what I think was good advice. Don't let an attacker see it or threaten him with it. If you need to use it, keep it concealed in your hand and make sure the muzzle is touching his skull when you pull the trigger. Me, I think I would just keep a very large box of flares and say I was worried about sinking. -- Roger Long |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... snip If this turns out to be a double reply, sorry, but it seems my first response was lost in cyberspace... The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. Oh that's silly. What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the average joe on the street. I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun today, you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter nonsense. Again, using the statistics that you posted, criminals and insane people account for the majority of all firearm related events. In short, "crazy" people, because only crazy people murder others - or themselves. Yet you would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves, family, and friends. Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics, if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from gun violence. With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting individual. So, do you consistently apply your logic to most things in your life, or just guns? Or do you have reason to fear your family members? |
Prof. Irwin Corey wrote:
Just to add to this... snip But for home or boat defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is an infinitely better choice. More likely to hit something vital. If only we could conceal carry shotguns! :) oooohhh be afraid be very afraid!!! what a great way to live |
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:56:06 GMT, "Greg"
wrote: Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics, if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from gun violence. With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting individual. One of the statistics I remember from the era of Vietnam was that many more people were killed every year on american highways that in 'nam. Many people have irrational fears far out of step with the risks. We ban drugs because they are dangerous but we lose 50 times as many people to legal substances - cigarettes and alcohol. We are as a nation hysterical about the dangers of terrorism when there has been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Are terrorists dangerous? Perhaps, but nobody will ever be able to take over a jet with just a box cutter again. The only way they did on 9/11 is that the old paradigm was that if you sit down and shut up during a hijacking you are more likely to survive than if you try to interfere. The fourth plane - where people knew what was happening - is proof of this. Had they known at the beginning, they would probably all still be alive. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com