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)

"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
news
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
news
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)