Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:06:00 -0400, H the K
wrote:

What? That I'd shoot someone that busted into my house? That's not a
"plan to shoot someone." That's just part of a household defense
mechanism to protect the lives here.

Having a home defence gun is not a bad idea, essential if you live in
the country. However, if money is short for things like fire
extinguishers and smoke detectors, not to mention flu shots, get a
cheap used gun. A single shot 12 ga, with a short, but still legal, 19
inch barrel. If you want to go after Bambi, a scope, from the
recreation budget, is a good idea.

Casady



I agree that the 12 gauge is the first line of firearms defense in a
home, and would be the first weapon I'd pick up in case of a break-in.

wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:53:38 -0400, H K
wrote:

Richard Casady wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:06:00 -0400, H the K
wrote:

What? That I'd shoot someone that busted into my house? That's not a
"plan to shoot someone." That's just part of a household defense
mechanism to protect the lives here.
Having a home defence gun is not a bad idea, essential if you live in
the country. However, if money is short for things like fire
extinguishers and smoke detectors, not to mention flu shots, get a
cheap used gun. A single shot 12 ga, with a short, but still legal, 19
inch barrel. If you want to go after Bambi, a scope, from the
recreation budget, is a good idea.

Casady


I agree that the 12 gauge is the first line of firearms defense in a
home, and would be the first weapon I'd pick up in case of a break-in.

The only problem with the 12ga is the federal law mandates that it is
26" long and that might make it unwieldy inside a home.


You do what you have to do.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:36:42 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


The only problem with the 12ga is the federal law mandates that it is
26" long and that might make it unwieldy inside a home.

No doubt the 12ga has the stopping power at close range, and the fear
factor to any perpetrator, but at the close ranges inside a house, you
have to be quite accurate with your aim. There will be little or no
spread. I suspect, the shotgun's reputation as the "ultimate" home
protection weapon is a canard.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:36:42 -0400, gfretwell wrote:


The only problem with the 12ga is the federal law mandates that it is
26" long and that might make it unwieldy inside a home.

No doubt the 12ga has the stopping power at close range, and the fear
factor to any perpetrator, but at the close ranges inside a house, you
have to be quite accurate with your aim. There will be little or no
spread. I suspect, the shotgun's reputation as the "ultimate" home
protection weapon is a canard.


Uh...you don't have to be *as* "accurate" inside the house with a
shotgun as you do with a pistol. At inside the house distances of 5' to
10', for example, the shotgun is going to provide more ventilation to
the target than a 9 mm.




--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:00:47 -0400, H the K wrote:


Uh...you don't have to be *as* "accurate" inside the house with a
shotgun as you do with a pistol. At inside the house distances of 5' to
10', for example, the shotgun is going to provide more ventilation to
the target than a 9 mm.

What's a typical shotgun's spread at 10'? An inch, maybe. Get out to
30-40', yes, you can spray and pray, but at close range, even with a riot
gun, you had better be accurate. I'm not denying the shotgun's stopping
power at close range, but quickly aiming and firing a shotgun in the
confines of a, say, bedroom, isn't as easy as most people think.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:00:47 -0400, H the K wrote:


Uh...you don't have to be *as* "accurate" inside the house with a
shotgun as you do with a pistol. At inside the house distances of 5' to
10', for example, the shotgun is going to provide more ventilation to
the target than a 9 mm.

What's a typical shotgun's spread at 10'? An inch, maybe. Get out to
30-40', yes, you can spray and pray, but at close range, even with a riot
gun, you had better be accurate. I'm not denying the shotgun's stopping
power at close range, but quickly aiming and firing a shotgun in the
confines of a, say, bedroom, isn't as easy as most people think.


We might want to ask Dick Cheney. *He's* the expert on those sorts of
shots.

--
A wise Latina makes better decisions than a dumb elephant.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:00:47 -0400, H the K wrote:


Uh...you don't have to be *as* "accurate" inside the house with a
shotgun as you do with a pistol. At inside the house distances of 5' to
10', for example, the shotgun is going to provide more ventilation to
the target than a 9 mm.

What's a typical shotgun's spread at 10'? An inch, maybe. Get out to
30-40', yes, you can spray and pray, but at close range, even with a riot
gun, you had better be accurate. I'm not denying the shotgun's stopping
power at close range, but quickly aiming and firing a shotgun in the
confines of a, say, bedroom, isn't as easy as most people think.


We might want to ask Dick Cheney. *He's* the expert on those sorts of
shots.

--

Wonder if he'll hire himself out as home security, now that he's unemployed?

On Jul 23, 7:27*pm, H K wrote:
On 7/23/09 6:54 PM, Eisboch wrote:





"H the K" wrote in message
om...

Gateson the other hand is an officious Harvard prig who has used his
"do you know who I am" attitude in confrontations with airport
security at Logan to confrontations with security guards and hospital
employees including his own staff.

Add to that - his neighbors hate his guts. That's got to tell you
something.

Cops lying for cops lying for cops lying for cops.

What else is new?

Harry, your logic circuit breaker tripped again. Reset it, read Tom's
post again and try again.

Eisboch

Tom has a kid who is a cop. Therefore, he is predisposed to believe cops.

I am not so predisposed.

Forget the cops since you don't trust any.

I was talking about this part of Tom's post:

"Gateson the other hand is an officious Harvard prig who has used his
"do you know who I am" attitude in confrontations with airport
security at Logan to confrontations with security guards and hospital
employees including his own staff.

Add to that - his neighbors hate his guts. That's got to tell you
something."

You opted to ignore that part.

Eisboch

His neighbors hate his guts, so one of them called the cops on him when
he forgot his keys? White American at it's best, eh?

It doesn't matter whetherGateswas obnoxious or not. Once the cop
realized the guy was in his own house, he should have backed off and left..

Maybe the difference here is that you and Tom seem to have great respect
for people in uniform and think they deserve deference and respect just
because of those uniforms. Well...I do respect firefighters...they wear
uniforms.

"whetherGateswas," Herr Krause?
Mighty literary of you.

Have some food for thought. I implore you.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-303137

On Jul 23, 12:32*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
Just watching a local interview with the arresting officer.

There's another side to the story, folks.

Makes you wonder *who* was acting "stupidly".

Eisboch

Lifted from another forum, with credits:
--------------------------------
Mark Steyn
OC Register
July 24

By common consent, the most memorable moment of Barack Obama's
otherwise listless press conference on "health care" were his robust
remarks on the "racist" incident involving professor Henry Louis Gates
and the Cambridge police. The latter "acted stupidly," pronounced the
chief of state. The president of the United States may be reluctant to
condemn Ayatollah Khamenei or Hugo Chávez or that guy in Honduras
without examining all the nuances and footnotes, but sometimes there
are outrages so heinous that even the famously nuanced must step up to
the plate and speak truth to power. And thank God the leader of the
free world had the guts to stand up and speak truth to municipal
police Sgt. James Crowley.

For everyone other than the president, what happened at professor
Gates' house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home
without his keys and, as Obama put it, "jimmied his way into the
house." A neighbor, witnessing the "break-in," called the cops, and
things, ah, escalated from there. Professor Gates is now saying that,
if Sgt. Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will
graciously agree to "educate him about the history of racism in
America." Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents
remortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing
their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name
lunkhead for free.

As to the differences between the professor's and the cops' version of
events, I confess I've been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his
word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar
compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard
of Avon. "It's like Shakespeare's 'My love is like a red, red rose,'"
he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.

As it happens, "My luv's like a red, red rose" was written by Robbie
Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. 16th century
English playwright, 18th century Scottish poet: What's the diff?
Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general
patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of
English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a
court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates' testimony was
boorish enough to point out the misattribution.

I hasten to add I have nothing against the great man. He's always
struck me as one of those faintly absurd figures in which the American
academy appears to specialize, but relatively harmless by overall
standards. And I certainly sympathize with the general proposition
that not all encounters with the constabulary go as agreeably as one
might wish. Last year I had a minor interaction with a Vermont state
trooper, and, 60 seconds into the conversation, he called me a "liar."
I considered my options:

Option a): I could get hot under the collar, yell at him, get tasered
into submission and possibly shot while "resisting arrest";

Option b): I could politely tell the trooper I object to his
characterization, and then write a letter to the commander of his
barracks the following morning suggesting that such language is not
appropriate to routine encounters with members of the public and
betrays a profoundly defective understanding of the relationship
between law enforcement officials and the citizenry in civilized
societies.

I chose the latter course, and received a letter back offering partial
satisfaction and explaining that the trooper would be receiving
"supervisory performance-related issue-counseling," which, with any
luck, is even more ghastly than it sounds and hopefully is still
ongoing.

Professor Gates chose option a), which is just plain stupid. For one
thing, these days they have dash-cams and two-way radios and a GPS
gizmo in the sharp end of the billy club, so an awful lot of this
stuff winds up being preserved on tape, and, if you're the one a-
hootin' an' a-hollerin', it's not going to help.

In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the
Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could
calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the
internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice."
Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently
cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-
paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates
opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in
America?"

Gates then told him, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Outside,
Sgt. Crowley's mama failed to show. But among his colleagues were a
black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse
for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, "the highest example
of racial profiling I have seen."

But what of our post-racial president? After noting that "'Skip' Gates
is a friend" of his, President Obama said that "there is a long
history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped
by law enforcement disproportionately." But, if they're being
"disproportionately" stopped by African American and Latino cops, does
that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of
dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated
from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda,
the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The
photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop – Sgt. Leon
Lashley, I believe – standing in front of the porch while behind him a
handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful
state the Bull Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to
take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go
out to whup some uppity Negro boy.

As professor Gates jeered at the officers, "You don't know who you're
messin' with." Did Sgt. Crowley have to arrest him? Probably not. Did
he allow himself to be provoked by an obnoxious buffoon? Maybe. I
dunno. I wasn't there. Neither was the president of the United States,
or the governor of Massachusetts or the mayor of Cambridge. All of
whom have declared themselves firmly on the side of the Ivy League
bigshot. And all of whom, as it happens, are African American. A black
president, a black governor and a black mayor all agree with a black
Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-
black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid
racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism
suggests that the "post-racial America" will be living with blowhard
grievance-mongers like professor Gates unto the end of time.

In a fairly typical "he said/VIP said" incident, the VIP was the
author of his own misfortune but, with characteristic arrogance, chose
to ascribe it to systemic racism, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Klan,
slavery, Jefferson impregnating Sally Hemmings, etc. And so it goes,
now and forever.

Jack wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:32 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
Just watching a local interview with the arresting officer.

There's another side to the story, folks.

Makes you wonder *who* was acting "stupidly".

Eisboch

Lifted from another forum, with credits:
--------------------------------
Mark Steyn
OC Register
July 24



A. Steyn is a butt-buddy of Rush Limbaugh

B. He's been "caught" more times than Limbaugh and Coulter making up "news."

C. It figures you'd quote him.

D. Moron.

- - -


Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.