Man, 73, kills robber holding shears to wife's neck [Archive]

EvilYeti

20th November 2003, 05:11 PM

Young victim of San Francisco bus shooting death laid to rest
San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Nov 15, 2003
During his funeral Saturday, police and clergy urged Dawson's friends and family
to honor the 15-year-old by not seeking revenge for his death that has become ...

Lane's widow sentenced in his shooting death
FOX Sports - Nov 5, 2003
The widow of NFL running back Fred Lane was sentenced to nearly eight years in prison
Wednesday for shooting her husband to death three years ago as he walked ...

Dallas police investigating shooting death of teen
Dallas Morning News (subscription), TX - Nov 19, 2003
Homicide detectives are investigating after a teenager was found shot
to death in a South Dallas house Tuesday night. Another man ...

Former Combs bodyguard mourned after shooting death
Newsday - Nov 19, 2003
... Jones and Combs were acquitted in March 2001 of gun possession and bribery charges
stemming from a December 1999 shooting inside a New York club in which three ...

Former star charged in shooting death of limousine driver
MSNBC - Nov 6, 2003
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Edward Coleman set the date during a brief hearing Wednesday,
the deadline for Williams to reach a plea deal with Hunterdon County ...

BSO investigating shooting death of Lighthouse Point man at home
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, FL - Oct 30, 2003
LIGHTHOUSE POINT – Detectives are investigating the shooting death of a
businessman whose body was discovered in his home Wednesday evening. ...

2 Moncks Corner teens linked in Summerville shooting death turn ...
WIS, SC - Oct 31, 2003
31, 2003 - Two 18-year-old Moncks Corner men linked to the shooting death
of a Summerville teen have turned themselves into authorities. ...

Probe into shooting death continues
Wilson County News, TX - Nov 19, 2003
FLORESVILLE — An investi-gation into the shooting death of a 16-year-old
boy remained open as detectives awaited results of an autopsy. ...

Man Charged With Second-Degree Murder In Shooting Death
Channel Oklahoma.com, OK - Oct 29, 2003
-- Pottawatomie County prosecutors have filed a second-degree murder charge against
an Oklahoma City man for the shooting death of a Tecumseh resident. ...

Police Search For Two Cars In Shooting Death Of Mom
NBC4.TV, CA - Nov 12, 2003
... 2 shooting death of Monica Agustina Noriega in Harbor Gateway, Calif. One is described
as a two-door black or dark gray 1980 Volkswagen Cabriolet convertible. ...

Suspect in custody in shooting death
Bismarck Tribune, ND - Nov 19, 2003
A suspect in the shooting death of a woman whose body was found in
a Minot house was in custody Tuesday, facing a murder charge. ...

Suspect in neighbor's shooting death arrested
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS - Nov 8, 2003
VICKSBURG, Miss. - A Vicksburg man accused in the shooting death of his neighbor
has turned himself in to authorities, ending a 10-day search. ...

Murder charged in Henderson Co. shooting death
Jackson Sun, TN - Nov 6, 2003
LEXINGTON - A Decatur County man has been charged with second-degree murder
after Wednesday's shooting death of Daryl McCollum of Henderson County. ...

Shooting death may have been self-defense
Boca Raton News, FL - Oct 28, 2003
... ripped away the quiet veneer of a busy West Boca shopping plaza at mid-morning Tuesday,
leaving one man dead in the region’s second fatal shooting in four ...

Latest: Shooting Death of Vietnamese Woman
KRON4.com, CA - Oct 30, 2003
... statements are scheduled for this morning in San Jose, paving the way for grand
jurors to begin their deliberations over the July shooting death of a young ...

Second woman charged in 2-year-old shooting death
Columbia State, SC - Nov 11, 2003
COLUMBIA, SC - A second woman has been charged with murder and armed
robbery in a 2-year-old shooting death. Richland County Sheriff's ...

Police: Robbery apparent motive in shooting death of baseball ...
Access North Georgia, GA - Nov 10, 2003
... Police also said they are investigating another shooting death nearby
for a possible connection. Police found the body of Jarrod ...

Man Pleads Not Guilty In Teen Sister's Shooting Death
Channel Cincinnati.com, OH - Nov 17, 2003
... mother, Kelly Wright, said her children loved each other and the shooting was an ... A
family friend, Helen Dunbar, said the death was a shock because the family ...

Argument over barking dog blamed in Ault shooting death
Greeley Tribune, CO - Nov 4, 2003
The victim of the shooting, Richard L. Hammock, 47, had gone to his neighbor's house
to confront him about allegedly shooting Hammock's dog with a pellet gun. ...

Man Charged In Teen's Accidental Shooting Death
KOIN, OR - Nov 19, 2003
VANCOUVER, Wash. -- A man accused in the accidental shooting death of
a teenage boy in Vancouver was set to appear Wednesday in court. ...

Woman charged in 2001 shooting death
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - Nov 9, 2003
A Columbia woman has been charged with murder and burglary in the 2001
shooting death of a Richland County man. Sheriff's investigators ...

Newport News Police Seek Suspect in Sunday Night Shooting Death
WAVY-TV, VA - Nov 17, 2003
Newport News police are seeking a suspect wanted in connection with
a Sunday night shooting death. Police say they were called to ...

Suspects in shooting death surrender
Charleston Post Courier, SC - Oct 31, 2003
MONCKS CORNERóTwo people linked to the shooting death of William Allie Martin
II turned themselves in to authorities Thursday to face related charges of ...

Innocent Plea Entered In Shooting Death
Fort Smith Times Record, AR - Oct 30, 2003
The attorney for a Lavaca man charged with first-degree murder in the shooting
death of his son-in-law entered an innocent plea for his client Wednesday. ...

Sheriff: Lee County teen's shooting death an accident
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL - Nov 14, 2003
The shooting death of a Lee County teenager who died while hunting
was an accident, authorities said Friday. Harnette County Larry ...

Charges stand in Bradford County shooting death
Providence Journal Bulletin (subscription), RI - 7 hours ago
WYSOX, Pa. (AP) - A New York man was ordered to stand trial in the
shooting death of his former son-in-law. Thomas MacKechnie, 59 ...

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death
Washington Observer Reporter, PA - Nov 15, 2003
A Mon Valley man was arrested early Thursday in the shooting death
of a Crafton man at Station Square in Pittsburgh. Ranza Ford, 24 ...

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death
Washington Observer Reporter, PA - Nov 15, 2003
A Mon Valley man was arrested early Thursday in the shooting death
of a Crafton man at Station Square in Pittsburgh. Ranza Ford, 24 ...

Leads scarce in weekend shooting death
Jackson Clarion Ledger, MS - Nov 5, 2003
Authorities here have yet to establish a motive or suspects in the weekend
shooting death of a former congressional candidate. Philadelphia ...

Investigators Consider Charges In Anderson Shooting Death
Carolina Channel.com, SC - Oct 28, 2003
... No charges have been filed in Grant's death. Captain ... murder. Vaughn told
deputies Friday the shooting occurred during a domestic dispute.

Toledo police seek clues in shooting death
Toledo Blade, OH - Nov 19, 2003
... The four deaths he won’t count include a premature baby left on a bed by his
teenage mother, a justifiable shooting by police, the death of a man who was ...

Family's attorneys investigate shooting death of son
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, FL - Oct 29, 2003
... apart, because of the teenage antics family and friends say provoked the shooting. ... The
parents have been mourning the death of their only child, a sophomore at ...

Murray indicted in shooting death
Newton Daily News Tribune, MA - Oct 31, 2003
... he shot another man in self- defense was indicted yesterday in connection with the
death. ... Murray admitted to shooting Joseph McDaniel, 19, of Framingham, on Oct ...

Police call shooting death a planned execution
Democrat and Chronicle, NY - Oct 31, 2003
... shooting, Abdulaziz Ahmad, 30, was shot about 30 minutes earlier on Hudson Avenue.
Investigators are still trying to nail down the motive for the death of Ahmad ...

Police seek information in woman's shooting death
Petersburg Progress Index, VA - Nov 12, 2003
... Johnson, 60, of the 500 block of South Dunlop Street, was shot to death by an ... The
shooting appears to have been done by someone on foot, not from a vehicle ...

Boy to stand trial in shooting death of child
MLive.com (subscription), MI - 23 hours ago
... 3 shooting that killed a 12-year-old classmate. Midland County Probate Court officials
set a Feb. 11 trial date for the boy in the death of James K. Scheifflee ...

Ralph

20th November 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by clk
Hey Richard,
Why don't you tell us how James Martin (who was killed Oct. 2 at a Shoppers Food Warehouse in Wheaton, Md., as he was picking up food for his church's youth group) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun?
Better yet, tell us how Sarah Ramos could have saved herself (she was killed on Oct. 3 while sitting on a bench and waiting for a ride to her job).
If you want, you can tell us how Premkumar Walekar (who lost his life to a sniper's bullet as he pumped gas at a station in the Aspen Hill area) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun....
There are several more people, but I don't have time to go through the list.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_snipervictims021014.html

Maybe you'd like to tell the man who saved his wife's life that hanguns are useless for self-defense...........

xouper

20th November 2003, 05:45 PM

The question often asked by people who wish to ban guns is, "what do you need a gun for?" That question is being answered by the news items posted by RichardG. [see footnote]

Granted, a gun may not always be effective in all circumstances, but it is not logical to argue, "you won't always be able to defend yourself with a gun, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to have one." It is also not reasonable to take guns away from law abiding citizens just because a few people use them illegally or stupidly.

Self defense is a fundamental human right and a gun is clearly an effective weapon for self-defense. The Michigan State Constitution clearly acknowledges this right.

In this particular incident, what weapon other than a gun would have been as effective in defending the life of the man's wife - a knife? a stun gun? a baseball bat? a bag of rocks?

Footnote: Not all gun control advocates on this forum ask that question, but it has been asked, so please save your straw man protest for some other time.

clk

20th November 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Maybe you'd like to tell the man who saved his wife's life that hanguns are useless for self-defense...........

I never said that they are useless for self-defense. I just don't think that we should start legalizing any and all kinds of guns just because they can be used for self defense. If we were to legalize all guns (automatic rifles, etc.), it would only cause more problems. Guns can be used for self-defense, but I don't think that any problems would be solved if everyone carried a gun around.

edited to add: I am also saying that for every story of someone using a gun for self defense that Richard can come up with, I can find a dozen stories of people getting killed by guns in a situation where they could not have defended themselves with a gun.

Ralph

20th November 2003, 06:07 PM

I'd say the guy who's problem was his wife had a sharp object held to her throat found the gun to be a very good solution....

I noticed the intruder wasn't using one of stolen guns that always seem to be a problem......

Seriously---pretend I'm that guy......what would you say to me about my ownership of a handgun.......If I accept your arguement that I shouldn't have had it......my wife might be dead right now.

Now pretend YOU'RE that guy...........someone's got a knife to your wife's throat........

Would you like to have access to a handgun...... ??

If not a handgun---what would you prefer instead (besides a shotgun)....................??.................

Richard G

20th November 2003, 06:25 PM

edited to add: I am also saying that for every story of someone using a gun for self defense that Richard can come up with, I can find a dozen stories of people getting killed by guns in a situation where they could not have defended themselves with a gun.

I will agree with you on this clk. I'll even concede to you that you will find more news stories of crimes commited with firearms than crimes thwarted. Its not because that is the reality, its because the media in general does not cover incidents of succesful self defense incidents as vigorously as it will crimes. Much of it is because of anti-gun media bias. And much of it is because if someone thwarts a crime just by displaying a firearm, and scaring off their attacker, there really is no news story at all. Or even a crime commited.

When the bad guy is dropped and killed by the good guys, that will make the headlines. And for every one of those, there are a dozen others in which no shot was fired at all, and is not news worthy.

clk

20th November 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Its not because that is the reality, its because the media in general does not cover incidents of succesful self defense incidents as vigorously as it will crimes. Much of it is because of anti-gun media bias.

I disagree. I think those types of stories would be welcomed by the media because they are heroic. Unfortunately, gun deaths have become so common in this country that they are reported in almost every edition of every local newspaper. However, if there was a successful self defense story, I think the media would report it right away, because it is different from what is usually reported.

And much of it is because if someone thwarts a crime just by displaying a firearm, and scaring off their attacker, there really is no news story at all. Or even a crime commited.

When the bad guy is dropped and killed by the good guys, that will make the headlines. And for every one of those, there are a dozen others in which no shot was fired at all, and is not news worthy.

I agree with that. However, I still think that there are more deaths caused by criminals using guns than there are successful self defenses of a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves. I believe that because of the news stories you can find that show that many people die every day because they were killed by guns. You may think that this is because the media has an anti-gun bias, but I disagree. What is your evidence for stating that the media is anti-gun biased?

hal bidlack

20th November 2003, 06:44 PM

This thread has been reported for the "spam" spamming. I find that such posts are a violation of the spam rule. If you find a particular poster frustrating, please put that person on ignore, but do not actively try to disrupt his thread. That same behavior by varioius "trolls" in the past has been attacked, and it's not right to do it now.

No more spam, please.

hal

shanek

20th November 2003, 07:03 PM

[knows he's going to regret getting into yet another gun thread...]

Originally posted by clk
Hey Richard,
Why don't you tell us how James Martin (who was killed Oct. 2 at a Shoppers Food Warehouse in Wheaton, Md., as he was picking up food for his church's youth group) could have saved himself if he had been carrying a gun?

Hey clk,
Why don't you tell us how the inability of a gun to protect oneself in one situation means that someone in a different situation where a gun could protect him should be stripped of that option?

shanek

20th November 2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by clk
I disagree. I think those types of stories would be welcomed by the media because they are heroic.

Then why was Vice Principal Joel Myrick's use of his personal handgun to stop a school shooting in Pearl, MI left out of most national accounts of the story? Oh, and it was actually illegal for the gun to be in his car, so if people like you had their way Myrick likely wouldn't have been able to stop them and there might have been an incident to rival Columbine. As it is, they're all lucky he forgot to take it out of his car the night before.

Unfortunately, gun deaths have become so common in this country that they are reported in almost every edition of every local newspaper.

That's just a load of crap. They don't report every single death from traffic accidents, do they? The news media does NOT report things that are common in this country...because that just isn't news, now, is it?

I agree with that. However, I still think that there are more deaths caused by criminals using guns than there are successful self defenses of a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves.

Even if that's true, how do you justify taking the guns from people who are defending themselves? How do you justify telling someone, "Sorry you had to let your wife die and all, but other people were using guns to kill people"?

Ralph

20th November 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Ralph
I'd say the guy who's problem was his wife had a sharp object held to her throat found the gun to be a very good solution....

I noticed the intruder wasn't using one of stolen guns that always seem to be a problem......

Seriously---pretend I'm that guy......what would you say to me about my ownership of a handgun.......If I accept your arguement that I shouldn't have had it......my wife might be dead right now.

Now pretend YOU'RE that guy...........someone's got a knife to your wife's throat........

Would you like to have access to a handgun...... ??

If not a handgun---what would you prefer instead (besides a shotgun)....................??.................

Anybody else..... feel free to answer these questions if clk doesn't.......

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Anybody else..... feel free to answer these questions if clk doesn't.......

Cannot really see the point of the question.

If someone had a knife at my wife's throat would I like to have a gun? Yes. If she was being attacked by a shark would I like a spear? Yes. If she was floating in space would I like a space suit? Yes.

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

clk

20th November 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Even if that's true, how do you justify taking the guns from people who are defending themselves? How do you justify telling someone, "Sorry you had to let your wife die and all, but other people were using guns to kill people"?

I never said that I wanted to take guns away from people defending themselves. I've only said that arming everyone in the country with a handgun would not solve any problems, but only lead to more.

Originally posted by ralph

your arguement that I shouldn't have had it

Jesus, how many times do I have to repeat this? I never said that guns should be taken away from anyone .

BTox

20th November 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I don't think everyone should carry guns, or own them (and I own a handgun), but your hypothetical is absurd. I'm having a fight with my wife... I realize there's a gun in the house.... gun takes over mind.... must kill wife....

Richard G

20th November 2003, 08:21 PM

Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

Thats not a hypothetical. I have a pistol on my hip every waking hour. My wife ALSO has a pistol that she carries. We have been married 11 years now, and have had more heated domestic disputes than I could count. Your notion that we would blow each other away over stupid argument is false.

(We only fire warning shots at each other. We never shoot to kill).

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Thats not a hypothetical. I have a pistol on my hip every waking hour. My wife ALSO has a pistol that she carries. We have been married 11 years now, and have had more heated domestic disputes than I could count. Your notion that we would blow each other away over stupid argument is false.

(We only fire warning shots at each other. We never shoot to kill).
This may be valid in your case Richard but, as usual, anecdotes are not going to add value to this issue. If everyone packed handguns 24/7 there would be many cases where people use those handguns to save themselves and others. There would also be many cases where those handguns would be used to deliberately or accidently kill innocent people.

If you advocate that everyone should be entitled to carry handguns then you are also supporting the rights of those who are unstable and dangerous to be armed. If you are saying that only sane, sensible, rational people with a valid reason should be armed then you are just another gun control advocate like me.......We only differ in our opinion of what is sane enough, sensible enough or what constitutes a valid reason to be armed.

Tell me why insane people should be allowed to carry guns. Tell me why people with uncontroled violent tempers should be allowed to carry guns. Tell me why people who bash thier wives should be allowed to carry guns......If you think they should not, tell me why you are not just another gun control advocate like me.
You know you are sane, how does the gunshop owner?

Richard G

20th November 2003, 08:49 PM

Sane and sensible people may be armed. No valid reason required. Thats my position.

People who are violent, unstable, or bash thier wives are already prohibited by Federal law from possesing, or owning firearms.

The gunshop owner in America is required by Federal law to run an F.B.I. background check on the buyer. Thats how they know.

The Fool

20th November 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by BTox

I don't think everyone should carry guns, or own them (and I own a handgun), but your hypothetical is absurd. I'm having a fight with my wife... I realize there's a gun in the house.... gun takes over mind.... must kill wife....
Does this statement mean you are a "gun grabber"? Does it mean you want to "ban guns"? These are all things I am regularly called on this forum.

Why shouldn't everyone carry guns? What is it about you that puts you in the "ok to own a gun" category?

If you think a hypothetical about domestic violence using guns is absurd I don't really know what to reply..... Do you read newspapers at all? Man bashes wife, Man shoots wife dead...which example requires a gun?

BTox

20th November 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Does this statement mean you are a "gun grabber"? Does it mean you want to "ban guns"? These are all things I am regularly called on this forum.

No, it means I think sane and law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns if they so desire. BTW, you really care what people call you on an internet forum? I couldn't care less...

Originally posted by The Fool

Why shouldn't everyone carry guns? What is it about you that puts you in the "ok to own a gun" category?

Same as above, sane and law-abiding. I had to undergo an FBI and background check in my state to get a permit to buy a handgun. I have no issue with such controls.

Originally posted by The Fool

If you think a hypothetical about domestic violence using guns is absurd I don't really know what to reply..... Do you read newspapers at all? Man bashes wife, Man shoots wife dead...which example requires a gun?

Yes, I read newspapers. I see man beats wife to death, man stabs wife to death, man kills wife with hammer, wife runs over husband (repeatedly) with car (let's not let the ladies off in this)... in addition to gun killings. The point is insane, irrational people will kill each other whether they have guns or not.

The Fool

20th November 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by BTox

No, it means I think sane and law-abiding citizens should have the right to own guns if they so desire. BTW, you really care what people call you on an internet forum? I couldn't care less...

What form of psychiatric testing do you suggest be given to people who want to buy a gun, how should it be administered and by who?

Same as above, sane and law-abiding. I had to undergo an FBI and background check in my state to get a permit to buy a handgun. I have no issue with such controls.

welcome to the forum fellow gun control advocate...

Yes, I read newspapers. I see man beats wife to death, man stabs wife to death, man kills wife with hammer, wife runs over husband (repeatedly) with car (let's not let the ladies off in this)... in addition to gun killings. The point is insane, irrational people will kill each other whether they have guns or not.

Are handguns good at killing people? would I be more effective at killing with a handgun or is thier usefullness greatly over-rated? I mean, if they are no damn good at improving my killing ability why do people want them for protection? If I carry a gun because it would make me more effective at killing rapists and muggers why would it not also make me more effective at killing wives?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways....guns lead to more dead baddies but not more dead goodies?????

BTW...Nice Avater, do you own a Boxer?

Cain

21st November 2003, 12:43 AM

Future winners of the GDFM award will be privately contacted in advance. I'm fudging in declaring this week's recipient a little sooner than usual (as I might be unavailable for the next three or four days.)

Richard- best of luck on all your future endeavors.

NightG1

21st November 2003, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.%20Louis%20City%20/%20County/E7BF159BE8A9090A86256DE4001D3671?OpenDocument&Headline=Man,%207
10 year old Houston boy shoots and kills friend. (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/110703_local_friendshoot.html)

21st November 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by clk

IYou may think that this is because the media has an anti-gun bias, but I disagree. What is your evidence for stating that the media is anti-gun biased?

At the risk of getting sucked in to another gun thread, I would point out the use of the phrase "assult weapon" which is the media way of refering to any firearm that they don't like. They have also used the term "machine gun" in stories that I have heard. This too is wrong. They attempt to demonize, not report and the choice of words makes this quite clear. I have also heard the phrase "assult pistol" which is meaningless but scarey.

They tend not to report gun news that does not fit their agenda. For example, I have never read or heard a word (I am not suggesting that I audit the news, just that I consume it a fair amount) regarding the passage of carry laws across the country. When NJ passed an "assult weapon" bill some time ago it was promised that it would reduce murders. Well, these things account for a vanishingly small percentage of crimes in the first place but when the bill was up for renwewel there was no change in the numbers that were supposed to be improved. This was not reported. Similarly when, at that time, the pols wanted photo ops showing these horrid things, they found that the Cops could not provide one since they had not confiscated one in a dogs age. They ended up getting one from a gun store.

The hysteria over assault weapons is a complete media fabrication. It goes far beyond simple mistakes and is uniform in the mainstream media. The laws that were created do not address any problem yet their passage is hailed as a victory with no support. Pure propaganda, and sad that a free press is part of it.

I ask you, what stories have you seen that are pro gun? Any? That would suggest that there are none. Do you buy that? Then why does it occur?

NightG1

21st November 2003, 06:41 AM

Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

21st November 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by NightG1
Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

Very fair question.

An assult rifle is a military arm that is mainly characterized as having full automatic capability. I believe that the first one was the Schmeisser Machine Pistol in 9mm developed by my favorite, socialist, peace loving folks, the Germans in WW2.

Anyhoo... the term "assult rifle" has nothing to do with operation, and all to do with appearence. ie. plastic stock, stamped alloy frame, bayonet lug (I kid you not). Functionally, these critters are identical to any semi-automatic deer rifle. They just look like military arms.

The problem is that they (the media) do know exactly what they are talking about. If you concede the principle that an "assult rifle" is worthy of banning, you really are on a slippery slope because there is no material difference between them and millions of hunting rifles. None. Nor, I might add, with semi-automatic shotguns.

I, personally, find them to be not asthetically pleasing and for that reason do not own one.

Thank you for your kind words.

21st November 2003, 07:10 AM

Let me add that the "assult weapon" ban uses this incorrect terminology. That is recent and ongoing.

NightG1

21st November 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Sane and sensible people may be armed. No valid reason required. Thats my position.

People who are violent, unstable, or bash thier wives are already prohibited by Federal law from possesing, or owning firearms.

The gunshop owner in America is required by Federal law to run an F.B.I. background check on the buyer. Thats how they know.
Richard:

Pardon me for asking the obvious but if Mr. Not-so-Sane has never been arrested or otherwise done anything that would cause his name to appear in the FBI's database, how would the gun shop owner know he is selling a weapon to a dangerous and unstable person? Minority Report perhaps?

Richard G

21st November 2003, 12:14 PM

Well NightG, thats pretty much impossible to know, short of mind reading.

Hexxenhammer

21st November 2003, 12:21 PM

I think the real lesson of this story is: Don't bring a knife to a gun-fight.

Ralph

21st November 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by NightG1
Ed:

At the risk of being a fricking pedant and pi$$ing off one of my favorite posters, my impression is that when the "media" refers to an "assault weapon", they generally know what they are talking about. An "assault weapon" is as different from a hunting rifle or shotgun as a backhoe is from a tricycle. Can you give us some recent examples were the term "assault rifle" was used to refer to a weapon "they don't like". I admit that journalism and the standards of accuracy have declined over the years but this is being a bit extreme

Two things make an assault rifle an assault rifle.

#1..it's an automatic.......pull the trigger once--the gun keeps firing (generally at a very fast rate) until the magazine is empty.

#..It uses a rifle, not a smaller pistol cartridge.

Guns like the German Schmeisser or the American "Tommy gun" aren't assault rifles.....they're submachine guns. Even though they fire automatically......they use handgun-sized cartridges--not rifle cartdridges.

They throw a lot of lead but are innacurate at lonf range.

The first assault rifle was the German STG-44----also called the "Sturmgewehr". It was very effective but only issued in limited #s ....mainly to Waffen SS units.

Had it been standard issue for the entire German army--things may have gone differently.

I think you'll find most responsible gun owners aren't against gun laws. They're against stupid gun laws that serve only to allow a politician to claim he's "doing something about the gun problem".....but do NOTHING to solve the problems of gun-related violence.

The assault weapons ban is a perfect example of this. As Ed said--- the only things it bans are cosmetic things.....pistol grips--folding stocks.......things that make the gun LOOK "bad"............

Ralph

21st November 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Cannot really see the point of the question.

If someone had a knife at my wife's throat would I like to have a gun? Yes. If she was being attacked by a shark would I like a spear? Yes. If she was floating in space would I like a space suit? Yes.

Do I think everyone should carry a gun 24/7 just in case someone ever holds a knife to thier wife's throats? You may very possibly answer yes to this but what about the downside to this? Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I've been married almost 20 years. I've had quite a few fights with my wife but somehow...even though there's always been firearms in the house......we've never shot each other.

In fact---I've never even hit her.....or my kids....or even my dog.
I'm not a violent person and don't generally resort to violent methods to solve my problems. If I had any history at all of a violent crime....(even juvenile offenses count---for the purposes of getting a CW permit---they DO look at things done as a kid.)
I wouldn't be allowed to carry a CW. Anythings possible...but I'm probably not the guy who's going to go postal.

I don't carry a gun 24/7 and I realize there are situations where a gun wouldn't help but there are also situations where a gun would help----in fact it may be the only thing that could save you.
You yourself answered "yes" to my question so obviously you recognize that if some punk has a knife to your wife's throat---diplomacy or a wiffle ball bat might not be real effective. I know we have a few "martial arts experts" on the board who'd simply kick the weapon out of his hand.....but this guy was 72....and having the gun probably saved his wife's life.........

These situations always get dismissed as "not likely to happen"....."Oh--that's a one in a billion occurrence so why bother". I'd argue that if YOU'RE the one in the ****......you may have a different take on this.

What's equally unlikely is that MY right to defend myself represents a threat to others. No history of violent crime....no mental illness....I don't drink or drug.......The guns are either under my direct control or locked up.......no Smith & Wesson bumper stickers telling thieves "gun here to steal"....I'm not the guy you have to worry about....so stop passing laws that take away my right to protect my life .

I appreciate you answering my question........I noticed that nobody else did.....................Ralph

shanek

21st November 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Lets setup another hypothetical....you and your wife are having a wild domestic fight...there is a gun handy...... you know the rest.

I really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

Richard G

21st November 2003, 04:56 PM

The mentality, and leaping to such conclusions you speak of Shanek, is covered in depth by a paper of Sarah Thompson, M.D. I've posted it before, but you can see it again here: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

BTox

21st November 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

What form of psychiatric testing do you suggest be given to people who want to buy a gun, how should it be administered and by who?

Testing is never going to happen. Best we can do is psychiatric background checks, which is what our state does.

Originally posted by The Fool

Are handguns good at killing people? would I be more effective at killing with a handgun or is thier usefullness greatly over-rated? I mean, if they are no damn good at improving my killing ability why do people want them for protection? If I carry a gun because it would make me more effective at killing rapists and muggers why would it not also make me more effective at killing wives?

It seems to me you can't have it both ways....guns lead to more dead baddies but not more dead goodies???

Guns are obviously more effective for killing people, but it will not change the intent of killing someone (like the wife example we keep using. Are you trying to say something about your wife? ;) ). Accidental deaths are a whole other issue, and a good one. Again, controls are needed - my 8 year old son does not know it exists, but if he were to find it, it has a trigger lock.

Originally posted by The Fool

BTW...Nice Avater, do you own a Boxer?

Yes, my avatar is a pic of our boxer. She turns 2 tomorrow - great dog.

BTW... do you own a Sergeant Schultz??

The Fool

21st November 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by BTox

BTW... do you own a Sergeant Schultz??

I did own a schultz but the damn things bark too much...
Actually, along with many mongrels I have owned German Shepherd dogs, English springer spaniels, English Bull terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Grew up with many dogs, my father was a Dog judge in three groups...... Working Dogs, Gun dogs and Hounds.
Anyway, must sign off. I have to deal with Shaneks stupidity.

The Fool

21st November 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

Listen up doofus. You want to comment on my mental stability?You want to leap to conclusions? Well try leaping to the concusion that a housefull of guns improves the survival rates of women in domestic violence situations. Lol....yea whatever. But why the F*ck would you care eh????

Tell us all again how because you are gods gift to fine family values that your opinion on Domestic violence and guns is any more useful than any of the other libertarian/anarchist fairytales you dress up as reality. Tell us what your answer to pointless tragic gun deaths is Shanek, we could all do with a laugh.

I fully realise that in your imaginary world everyone would do the right thing, maybe you should get out more.

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Young victim of San Francisco bus shooting death laid to rest

Lane's widow sentenced in his shooting death

Dallas police investigating shooting death of teen

Former Combs bodyguard mourned after shooting death

Former star charged in shooting death of limousine driver

BSO investigating shooting death of Lighthouse Point man at home

2 Moncks Corner teens linked in Summerville shooting death turn ...

Probe into shooting death continues

Man Charged With Second-Degree Murder In Shooting Death

Police Search For Two Cars In Shooting Death Of Mom

Suspect in custody in shooting death

Suspect in neighbor's shooting death arrested

Murder charged in Henderson Co. shooting death

Shooting death may have been self-defense

Latest: Shooting Death of Vietnamese Woman

Second woman charged in 2-year-old shooting death

Police: Robbery apparent motive in shooting death of baseball ...

Man Pleads Not Guilty In Teen Sister's Shooting Death

Argument over barking dog blamed in Ault shooting death

Man Charged In Teen's Accidental Shooting Death

Woman charged in 2001 shooting death

Newport News Police Seek Suspect in Sunday Night Shooting
Suspects in shooting death surrender

Innocent Plea Entered In Shooting Death

Sheriff: Lee County teen's shooting death an accident

Charges stand in Bradford County shooting death

Monessen man charged in Pittsburgh shooting death

Leads scarce in weekend shooting death

Investigators Consider Charges In Anderson Shooting Death

Toledo police seek clues in shooting death

Family's attorneys investigate shooting death of son

Murray indicted in shooting death

Police call shooting death a planned execution

Police seek information in woman's shooting death

Boy to stand trial in shooting death of child

Good work, EYeti. I have considered keeping a running post on this board on gun-related news just in Houston, both pro and con. This would show that the "good news" would be swamped by the "bad news".

People like Richard like to seize upon the occasional good news and publicize it, while ignoring all of the gun deaths that occur with such alarming regularity. Gun lovers say that the news only reports bad news, but my experience (in the gun crazy state of Texas) is that good news gun stories are in great demand. It is sad that the supply is so limited.

a_unique_person

22nd November 2003, 04:59 AM

Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
[a whole bunch of personal abuse, and nothing of any constructive contribution]

Uh-huh...looks like I may have been right!

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

Kennedy was shot by a sniper. There's nothing much anyone can do in a case like that.

Ralph

22nd November 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, if only Kennedy had been armed......

You're right...a gun wouldn't have helped Kennedy.

I think I'll spend my afternoon ripping out the airbags & seatbelts in my car. While I'm at it.......I may as well toss out the motorcycle helmet & leathers.

After all--if an 18-wheeler crosses into my lane at 80mph.......those things aren't going to help at all.........

shanek

22nd November 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Good work, EYeti. I have considered keeping a running post on this board on gun-related news just in Houston, both pro and con. This would show that the "good news" would be swamped by the "bad news".

People like Richard like to seize upon the occasional good news and publicize it, while ignoring all of the gun deaths that occur with such alarming regularity. Gun lovers say that the news only reports bad news, but my experience (in the gun crazy state of Texas) is that good news gun stories are in great demand. It is sad that the supply is so limited.

Tell you what: Why don't you and EvilYeti go and find all of the headlines like, "Mother killed when rear-ended by sleeping driver," "Man killed by lane-changer not looking," etc. and see if the proportion of news stories covering ordinary traffic accidents to those covering fatal shootings is anywhere close to the real ratio of traffic accident deaths to homicides committed with a firearm? If you can't, then why do you represent that the ratio of news stories covering firearm homicides to defensive gun use is indicative of the real-world ratio of these events?

Ralph

22nd November 2003, 10:27 AM

A 36 year old secretary...while walking through the Sullivan St parking garage to get to her car......was assaulted by a man carring a knife. After a brief struggle.....the woman was able to pull out a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag. The assailant turned & fled the scene and remains at large. The woman was treated & released at Memorial hospital for minor cuts & bruises.

An elderly couple, while taking their daily walk through the town cemetary----were accosted by a gang of youths , one of whom pointed a screwdriver at the them & demanded they both get on the ground and not move. The husband...opened up his jacket and pulled out his semi-automatic pistol at which point the attackers turned & fled.

A 911 call was recieved at 3am by a man claiming he heard the sound of glass smashing in his living room. He immediately grabbed his shotgun and racked a shell into the gun. At that point......he heard footsteps and the sound of someone exiting his home through the front door. When police arrived at the scene------they found evidence of forced entry.

These kinds of things happen all the time. They rarely make the front pages....never mind the evening news. At best they get a small column on page 6.

How about answering my questions Yeti.

A half an hour ago a lunatic broke into my home and put a knife to my throat. Because my husband had access to and knew how to use a firearm.......I'm alive now. Convince me that it's wrong for my husband to have a gun & it should be taken away from him.

Pretend it's your wife with the knife at her throat. Would you like to have access to a gun under these circumstances????...............In not----what would you prefer instead?????

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Tell you what: Why don't you and EvilYeti go and find all of the headlines like, "Mother killed when rear-ended by sleeping driver," "Man killed by lane-changer not looking," etc. and see if the proportion of news stories covering ordinary traffic accidents to those covering fatal shootings is anywhere close to the real ratio of traffic accident deaths to homicides committed with a firearm? If you can't, then why do you represent that the ratio of news stories covering firearm homicides to defensive gun use is indicative of the real-world ratio of these events?
Meanwhile, you go and find all the headlines about "disgruntled worker kill 7 with car" or, "child accidentally kills brother while playing with father's car", or "enraged husband kills unfaithful wife with car" or "gang war erupts into car crash".

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Ralph
A 36 year old secretary...while walking through the Sullivan St parking garage to get to her car......was assaulted by a man carring a knife. After a brief struggle.....the woman was able to pull out a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver from her handbag. The assailant turned & fled the scene and remains at large. The woman was treated & released at Memorial hospital for minor cuts & bruises.

An elderly couple, while taking their daily walk through the town cemetary----were accosted by a gang of youths , one of whom pointed a screwdriver at the them & demanded they both get on the ground and not move. The husband...opened up his jacket and pulled out his semi-automatic pistol at which point the attackers turned & fled.

A 911 call was recieved at 3am by a man claiming he heard the sound of glass smashing in his living room. He immediately grabbed his shotgun and racked a shell into the gun. At that point......he heard footsteps and the sound of someone exiting his home through the front door. When police arrived at the scene------they found evidence of forced entry.

These kinds of things happen all the time. They rarely make the front pages....never mind the evening news. At best they get a small column on page 6.
Guess what, Ralph. The crime blotter is on page 6 too. Sad gun stories are just as underreported as happy gun stories. More sad gun stories happen than happy ones. Not surprising when you have a gun around that someone gets hurt.

Originally posted by Ralph
A half an hour ago a lunatic broke into my home and put a knife to my throat. Because my husband had access to and knew how to use a firearm.......I'm alive now. Convince me that it's wrong for my husband to have a gun & it should be taken away from him.

Pretend it's your wife with the knife at her throat. Would you like to have access to a gun under these circumstances????...............In not----what would you prefer instead?????
Did they? Really? Or are you just personalizing this to make it sound dramatic. If so, then I will tell you that half an hour ago I was hit by a stray bullet from a nearby gang war. Pretend that for a minute.

shanek

22nd November 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Meanwhile, you go and find all the headlines about "disgruntled worker kill 7 with car" or, "child accidentally kills brother while playing with father's car", or "enraged husband kills unfaithful wife with car" or "gang war erupts into car crash".

Why should I? I'm not the one making those representations.

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Why should I? I'm not the one making those representations.
Because you seem to be suggesting that the media ignores automobile deaths and focusing on gun deaths. What you seem to be ignoring is that the majority of gun deaths are crimes, while many, if not most car deaths are, at worst, traffic violations. Even drunk drivers do not set out intending to commit a crime.

It seems to me that you are asking people to compare carelessness with criminal intent. Somehow, that doesn't seem right to me.

shanek

22nd November 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Because you seem to be suggesting that the media ignores automobile deaths and focusing on gun deaths.

You are the one making the representation that all events are covered proportionately by the media; because if they aren't, your entire argument falls apart. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

[special pleading deleted]

Tricky

22nd November 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek
You are the one making the representation that all events are covered proportionately by the media; because if they aren't, your entire argument falls apart. I'm challenging you to support that claim.

Well, Shane, that's sort of impossible to prove. We all know that various media outlets have various agendas. Newspapers, as a general rule, have to please their readership or else they won't sell subscriptions. Even in a very conservative town like Houston, the "bad news" about guns swamps the "good news" about guns. I could, as I have considered, start a thread reporting all gun-related news, good and bad, in the local paper, but it would be pretty boring. Yet I have no doubt that it would overwhelmingly show that "bad news" gun stories outnumber "good news" ones.

Who would you consider an impartial arbiter on this issue? What news source do you think has no agenda? If you can convince me (and the rest of the board) that you have found such a source, then perhaps we can settle such questions. If you have any specific evidence that local newspapers are misreporting the news, then let's hear it. Otherwise, I must suggest that they report what they have found. I certainly don't have any evidence that they suppress "good news" gun stories, so I must assume that such stories are relatively rare.

shanek

23rd November 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, Shane, that's sort of impossible to prove.

Then don't act as if it's true.

Yet I have no doubt that it would overwhelmingly show that "bad news" gun stories outnumber "good news" ones.

But nothing about that shows that the ratio between the two stories is the same as the actual ratio of the two events.

Who would you consider an impartial arbiter on this issue?

It's not about being "impartial." Obviously rare events are going to be rarely covered in the news; but also, more common events are going to be rarely covered as well, because that just isn't news. So you can't assume just because something isn't covered that often that it doesn't happen that often.

Tricky

23rd November 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Then don't act as if it's true.
Why not? To do otherwise would be to surmise that the editors of a newspaper in a conservative city are somehow conspiring to keep certain news items, those which would certainly interest their readers, out of print. No I can't prove they don't do this (proving a negative, remember), but it would make no sense. I think Occam is on my side here.
Originally posted by shanek

But nothing about that shows that the ratio between the two stories is the same as the actual ratio of the two events.
It is certainly not exactly the same, but I am guessing the ratios are fairly close. I don't have a paranoia about the media trying to hide stuff from me. But if you really are worried about the nasty media lying to you, you could investigate crime reports. I suspect they would show a similar pattern of "bad news" stories outnumbering "good news" stories. Of course, you might then propose that the police are in on the cover-up.
Originally posted by shanek
It's not about being "impartial." Obviously rare events are going to be rarely covered in the news; but also, more common events are going to be rarely covered as well, because that just isn't news. So you can't assume just because something isn't covered that often that it doesn't happen that often.
Ah, but it is news. the article seized upon by Richard to start this thread is evidence of how starved the public is for just such stories.

Of course we don't know for sure how many situations go unreported, and it is conceivable that some "good news" stories don't make it to the news because the person involved does not want the police to know he has a gun. But unless you can provide a convincing argument why the ratio of unreported cases should be higher on one side than the other, then the most sensible position to take is that they are about equal.

But even if "good news" stories were underreported by 10:1, the "bad news" stories would still outnumber them. If you pay any attention to the local news, you must know this is true.

shanek

23rd November 2003, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Why not?

Because that is assuming a conclusion which you admit you cannot support.

To do otherwise would be to surmise that the editors of a newspaper in a conservative city are somehow conspiring to keep certain news items, those which would certainly interest their readers, out of print.

No, it isn't. It simply means that more common events, like traffic accidents, just do not justify taking up the newspaper's space. Why are you always seeing consipiracy theories in people's arguments against you?

No I can't prove they don't do this (proving a negative, remember),

I am NOT asking you to prove a negative! I AM asking you to prove your assumption that the ratios between events reported in the newspaper at least closely match the ratios between those actual events in the real world.

I think Occam is on my side here.

I'd love to hear you explain why. I don't know of any reasonable person who says that the commonality of the reporting of events corresponds with the commonality of those events actually occuring. In fact, you're the ONLY person I've EVER heard assert this!

I don't have a paranoia about the media trying to hide stuff from me.

Nor do I; but I'm sur that it comforts you to assume so. My position has nothing at all to do with paranoia or media bias or cover-ups; just the very simple, obvious, and widely recognized effect that events which are more commonplace don't warrant as much news coverage.

But if you really are worried about the nasty media lying to you, you could investigate crime reports.

This has already been done, as has been pointed out on these threads so many times it's insane for someone to actually suggest they haven't been done.

I suspect they would show a similar pattern of "bad news" stories outnumbering "good news" stories.

No, they don't. Just the opposite.

Ah, but it is news. the article seized upon by Richard to start this thread is evidence of how starved the public is for just such stories.

How so? And if they're so "starved" for this news, then why isn't it front-page?

No, you're just rambling on about paranoia and conspiracy theories because you know you cannot challenge my actual refutation.

clk

23rd November 2003, 12:03 PM

shanek, you did seem to imply that the media is biased and they seem to want to keep certain stories out of the news because the editors are pro-gun control. See quote below.

Originally posted by shanek

Then why was Vice Principal Joel Myrick's use of his personal handgun to stop a school shooting in Pearl, MI left out of most national accounts of the story?

NightG1

23rd November 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Two things make an assault rifle....

Thanks Ralph. I already know what makes a gun an assault rifle but thank you for addressing a question I was not asking.

I think you'll find most responsible gun owners aren't against gun laws. They're against stupid gun laws that serve only to allow a politician to claim he's "doing something about the gun problem".....but do NOTHING to solve the problems of gun-related violence.

My personal experience with "responsible gun owners" is quite different. Most if not all have adopted Heston's "from my cold dead fingers" act as their only response to the gun violence problem in this country. Some politicians on both sides are only too happy to fan the flames and play up the hysteria.

BTox

23rd November 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by NightG1

My personal experience with "responsible gun owners" is quite different. Most if not all have adopted Heston's "from my cold dead fingers" act as their only response to the gun violence problem in this country. [/B]

Anecdotal evidence and valued as such.

Zep

23rd November 2003, 07:17 PM

Questions for Shanek, Richard G, etc.

I'm about to make an extended visit to Houston, Texas on business. I will be walking the streets of Houston, and will also be doing some sightseeing in a rental car. I understand it is not only common practice but "a very good idea" to carry a firearm for "personal protection" in these parts. In fact, some parts of the USA have made firearm ownership mandatory. But I have no firearm license, and no experience with them. So...

Can I rent / lease a decent high-powered personal firearm while I'm in the USA?

What conditions do I need to meet for me to have such a weapon on me?

As a non-US citizen, what happens to me if I use the weapon, accidentally or deliberately, and I hurt, maim or kill someone?

Can I get insurance to cover any of this?

shanek

23rd November 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by clk
shanek, you did seem to imply that the media is biased and they seem to want to keep certain stories out of the news because the editors are pro-gun control. See quote below.

That was a specific refutation of a specific point. Again, the accusaiton is thrown out because apparently no one wants to respond to the refutation itself.

Richard G

23rd November 2003, 08:57 PM

Zep....it is illegal for non-U.S. citizens (foreigners) to posses or purchase a firearm in the country. There are a few exceptions, such as diplomatic envoys, and Olympic shooting teams.

The only firearm "rental" I have ever seen cannot leave the firing range. You rent it, shoot it, then return it before you leave. Its a good way to try out different makes and models before making a purchase.

I believe the law would prohibit you from even renting one on the range just to shoot for the day. A liscensed firearm dealer would know for sure. And you can definitely find the answer on the BATF web site.

Zep

23rd November 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Zep....it is illegal for non-U.S. citizens (foreigners) to posses or purchase a firearm in the country. There are a few exceptions, such as diplomatic envoys, and Olympic shooting teams.

The only firearm "rental" I have ever seen cannot leave the firing range. You rent it, shoot it, then return it before you leave. Its a good way to try out different makes and models before making a purchase.

I believe the law would prohibit you from even renting one on the range just to shoot for the day. A liscensed firearm dealer would know for sure. And you can definitely find the answer on the BATF web site. OK, I understand. Thanks for the info.

So doesn't this mean that I, a naive foreigner, would be forced to walk or drive around ANYWHERE in the USA, not just Houston, completely and utterly unarmed and defenceless, from your point of view?

The Fool

23rd November 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That was a specific refutation of a specific point. Again, the accusaiton is thrown out because apparently no one wants to respond to the refutation itself.
Sorry Shane, I'm a little confused here....what is it you think you have refuted? I think you have claimed that "good stories" are just too common and boring to make it into the news....I think you have required others to show proof if they believe otherwise....I think you have exempted yourself from a similar burden...or am I mistaken?

Richard G

24th November 2003, 07:58 AM

So doesn't this mean that I, a naive foreigner, would be forced to walk or drive around ANYWHERE in the USA, not just Houston, completely and utterly unarmed and defenceless, from your point of view?

Legaly, yes. And I don't completely agree with position that the law puts you in. And I can sympathize. Almost anywhere I decide to travel in the world will have either total gun bans, or restrict me from carrying .

I understand the point of it though. A boat full of (name a country) immigrants could come over, then stage their own armed insurrection/ invasion.

Richard G

24th November 2003, 08:00 AM

Found another news item:
Muder suspect and kidnapper Scott Eizember shot with a concealed handgun! http://ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

Lufkin, TX - The search for accused double murderer Scott Eizember is over. Police in Lufkin, Texas say Eizember is hospitalized in stable condition after being shot four times by a man he allegedly kidnapped Sunday.

Tricky

24th November 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Found another news item:
Muder suspect and kidnapper Scott Eizember shot with a concealed handgun! http://ktul.com/news/stories/1103/111537.html

And for every "happy" story you can find, I can find a dozen tragic ones, like this (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/24/kkk/index.html) (courtesy of Headscratcher).

Nov. 24, 2003 | JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP) -- A bullet fired in the air during a Ku Klux Klan initiation ceremony came down and struck a participant in the head, critically injuring him, authorities said.

(Not even racists deserve to be shot.)

Zep

25th November 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Legaly, yes. And I don't completely agree with position that the law puts you in. And I can sympathize. Almost anywhere I decide to travel in the world will have either total gun bans, or restrict me from carrying .

I understand the point of it though. A boat full of (name a country) immigrants could come over, then stage their own armed insurrection/ invasion. Actually, that wasn't my point at all, but anyway...

So here I am, a foreigner who cannot carry a gun in the USA. So I have to ask myself a question before I visit: Is the USA so seriously dangerous that to go there without a gun would be seriously putting my own health or even life at risk? Which should I choose - go there and risk the dangers, or just not go?

And your answer, Richard G, would be...?

shanek

25th November 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Zep
So here I am, a foreigner who cannot carry a gun in the USA. So I have to ask myself a question before I visit: Is the USA so seriously dangerous that to go there without a gun would be seriously putting my own health or even life at risk?

Not usually. The USA is a big place, though; it depends a lot on where you're going. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports can help you out here because every state, county, and municipality sends the FBI their crime statistics every year. In particular, you can see crime statistics by state:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls

Or by Metropolitan area:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls

And it's a good idea as well to do a Google search for the city you'll be visiting along with "crime" to see what areas of the city you should avoid.

Zep

25th November 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Not usually. The USA is a big place, though; it depends a lot on where you're going. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports can help you out here because every state, county, and municipality sends the FBI their crime statistics every year. In particular, you can see crime statistics by state:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl05.xls

Or by Metropolitan area:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls

And it's a good idea as well to do a Google search for the city you'll be visiting along with "crime" to see what areas of the city you should avoid. Shane, what message is this sending to me about the USA, especially the regions referred to as "high crime" by the FBI? That they are so dangerous that visitors to the USA can't go there because they are not allowed to be armed to protect themselves? Is it really that bad that I have to avoid places because I'm not armed?

The Fool

25th November 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Shane, what message is this sending to me about the USA, especially the regions referred to as "high crime" by the FBI? That they are so dangerous that visitors to the USA can't go there because they are not allowed to be armed to protect themselves? Is it really that bad that I have to avoid places because I'm not armed?

There are undoubtably places in the USA where you would be mad to go...Just as there are places in Australia. The issue to me is if you would be safer with a gun. If you walk down mugger street at midnight you may very well get mugged, USA or Australia....... Pulling a handgun may just start a gunfight instead of a fistfight. I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Or I could elect someone who is willing to address why we end up with such crime zones.

BTox

25th November 2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Won't work. IMO a good defense is the best strategy in such situations. I always wear one of these when I travel in the seedier areas of the U.S.

http://www.knightsedge.com/images/suit-of-armor-6009t.jpg

shanek

25th November 2003, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
There are undoubtably places in the USA where you would be mad to go...Just as there are places in Australia. The issue to me is if you would be safer with a gun. If you walk down mugger street at midnight you may very well get mugged, USA or Australia....... Pulling a handgun may just start a gunfight instead of a fistfight. I think my wits and a good pair of running shoes may be more usefull.

Wouldn't it be far more useful to learn in advance where these high-risk places are and avoid them in the first place?

Really, Zep's response to my sincere and helpful post says a lot about him. Here I try to help the guy out, and all he can do is try and turn it against me...like there aren't places in any country that you would want to avoid. And the War on Drugs here has turned many poor and urban areas into just that...a war zone.

Zep

25th November 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Really, Zep's response to my sincere and helpful post says a lot about him. Here I try to help the guy out, and all he can do is try and turn it against me...like there aren't places in any country that you would want to avoid. And the War on Drugs here has turned many poor and urban areas into just that...a war zone. Shane, thanks for your help, but I'm not trying to turn this against you at all. I'm simply trying to get a grasp as to why it is "accepted" that there are places in the USA where it is "sensible" to go there only if armed. Alternatively, I'm trying to find out if this is actually the true situation, if it is really that bad that being armed is necessary in some places.

My own experience of the USA, limited though it is, is that the necessity for being personally armed anywhere is well nigh pointless and unnecessary. But I'm more than willing to take a native's advice here.

Incidentally, I partially disagree with Fool - while there are indeed some rough parts in many Australian cities and towns, and we do have our measure of violent crimes, I don't think there is anywhere in Australia where I would ever think I would NEED to be armed for my own self-defence.

The Fool

25th November 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Incidentally, I partially disagree with Fool - while there are indeed some rough parts in many Australian cities and towns, and we do have our measure of violent crimes, I don't think there is anywhere in Australia where I would ever think I would NEED to be armed for my own self-defence.

I didn't say there are places where you would need a gun....There is no place where you "need" a gun because I don't accept that packing a gun would decrease your chances of being killed or injured.

I said there are dangerous places, places you cannot go with safety, gun or no gun. Try a walk down Everleigh St in Redfern (Sydney) after dark. Unless you are with a local or known by the locals you will be bashed robbed and thrown out of the street, If you were silly enough to pull a gun you would be killed....

Zep

25th November 2003, 10:55 PM

I understand your point - some parts of Cabramatta, Liverpool area, Villawood, and Darlinghurst/Kings Cross are also just as nasty as Redfern at night. I know - I have walked these areas many times over the years living and working in Sydney, and I know their reputations. Even the suburban trains at night have a bad reputation these days, as you know.

But is there yet any push for people to go about armed here? I'm not seeing it, although people like Pauline H. say so, but then she's now back in a guarded palatial brick fortress in rural Queensland, far from reality!

The Fool

25th November 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Zep
But is there yet any push for people to go about armed here? I'm not seeing it, although people like Pauline H. say so, but then she's now back in a guarded palatial brick fortress in rural Queensland, far from reality!

I don't see any real move towards people wanting to carry a gun, besides the illegality my opiion is that the average Australian would think someone was a bit scary and paranoid if they packed a hundgun for "self defence".

athon

25th November 2003, 11:32 PM

No offence folks, but I am constantly amused how often critical thinking goes out the window where the whole 'gun' issue raises its ugly head.

I'm afraid I'm with Fool on this whole issue. There are just too many misassumptions about what a gun could do for you. Let's break it down further -

If you are walking through a bad neighbourhood (and I can speak from experience here, having lived in several in Queensland), when do you draw your weapon with the intention of using it?

a) When you feel unsafe?
b) When you feel threatened?
c) When you are threatened?
d) When you perceive an immediate danger to your wellbeing?

If you answered anything but (d), you are saying you are willing to kill somebody without strong evidence that they are going to kill you. And even looking at (d), there is only a chance that you are going to be killed by this person.

If you are going to kill somebody to protect your property, is that a justified reaction? A life for material goods?

And finally, I work by a 'social contract', that says if I'm allowed a gun, everybody is allowed one. I've read here that an FBI background check is grounds for deciding whether somebody is 'sane' or not. WTF?!! What magical machine do they have to tell whether somebody is not going to pull a glock out of their pants when they feel unsafe at 2 a.m. on a saturday morning in the Valley?

I'm not trying to take the p*ss out of anybody here - I just cannot perceive any logical way a gun is going to make me any safer. Is it a visual deterent? I would hesitate and say maybe, if not for the fact that most 'pro-gunners' would argue that an unloaded weapon is pointless (put another way, I would argue then 'sell the guns, ban the ammo').

Athon

Zep

26th November 2003, 12:25 AM

Athon, the point I'm trying to get to is to discover why there is a culture in the USA of people feeling there is a necessity to be armed for personal safety. Never mind the legalities of it, second amendment and all that.

Let's say that there is a genuine threat that makes it worth while to go about armed, at least in some specific (and determinable?) locations. In which case these parts of the USA would have the definite aura of a war-zone, a la Baghdad, etc. There, too, is a necessity for perpetual personal firearms. The response from Shane above is that I, an unarmed and utterly vulnerable foreign visitor, should consult official crime statistics (and I'm accepting these are valid) that show the hot-spots, and then avoid them like the plague. My subsequent question was to ask what sort of an image does this say about the USA to intending visitors. Certainly it isn't one of a peaceful nation, or one that would invite visitors anyway. Talk about not wanting people to visit...

However, let's assume that there is not a genuine threat that makes it necessary in places to go about armed. Immediately, the USA is portrayed as a more peaceful place, more desirable for visitors who can travel about without having to worry that they are unarmed. But this also raises a dilemma for the "personal safety firearms" adventists - if the USA is peaceful enough for visitors to be unarmed, isn't it equally as safe for ordinary US citizens? If the answer here is "yes" then why the push to arm US citizens? (If "no" then where can I get a stamp on my forehead that says "Made in the USA"?)

The answers, as the song says, are blowin' in the wind...

My own experience tends well towards the latter view - the US citizens are generally so peaceful that no firearms are required to be carried by anyone in public, except for police. But I'm not a resident, so this could be a completely skewed viewpoint!

shanek

26th November 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Shane, thanks for your help, but I'm not trying to turn this against you at all. I'm simply trying to get a grasp as to why it is "accepted" that there are places in the USA where it is "sensible" to go there only if armed.

That's a question only you can answer for yourself. There are higher crime areas, and you have several choices to ensure your safety: you could arm yourself, you could hire a bodyguard, or you could simply just not go there in the first place. There are a plethora of options. How you choose to deal with it is entirely up to you.

Of course, in your case, one of those options has been taken from you, so you must consider one of the others.

shanek

26th November 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Athon, the point I'm trying to get to is to discover why there is a culture in the USA of people feeling there is a necessity to be armed for personal safety.

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms.

Thanz

26th November 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by shanek

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms.
I think that you are in a bit of a minority there shanek. While I consider it admirable that you stand on principle rather than just self interest, I think that there is a cultural bias in the USA towards owning a gun for personal safety. Exploring this issue is what "Bowling for Columcine" was all about.

For example, if there is an equivalent to the NRA in Canada, I am not aware of it and it certainly does not have the same political clout as the NRA. Richard G. keeps posting these anecdotes, with the undercurrent being that guns are needed for personal protection - otherwise, what would these poor people have done?

So, I think the cultural bias is real - not a strawman - but perhaps it does get overstated sometimes.

DavidJames

26th November 2003, 08:20 AM

"There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right."

This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

Zep

26th November 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

There isn't. That's a strawman. There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right.

As I've pointed out to you before, but as you've apparently ignored, I don't own any firearms. I believe I did point out above that the legality of the situation was not relevant to my point. I'm not about to argue in this thread about the rights of US citizens - that would be presumptuous on my part, not being one myself, and I'm certain I don't have all the relevant facts at hand (although it sometimes amuses me to read the more inane comments from some people - not yourself, Shane - on this subject!).

Instead, DavidJames has put the question more succinctly:This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.And with that question in mind, I'm trying to discover if there actually is, or is not, a sufficient threat in US society that necessitates the advocation of arming citizens for their own safety. The example I'm using above is to evaluate the threats to a visiting foreigner, who, perforce, must be unarmed. If they are not threatened, why do US citizens feel that they themselves are?

shanek

26th November 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
For example, if there is an equivalent to the NRA in Canada, I am not aware of it

A simple Google search reveals several organizations.

and it certainly does not have the same political clout as the NRA.

Meaning what? The Canadian government isn't as representative as ours maybe?

Richard G. keeps posting these anecdotes, with the undercurrent being that guns are needed for personal protection - otherwise, what would these poor people have done?

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.

shanek

26th November 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

And what right do you have to demand such a reason of them?

NightG1

26th November 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Questions for Shanek, Richard G, etc.

I'm about to make an extended visit to Houston, Texas on business. I will be walking the streets of Houston, and will also be doing some sightseeing in a rental car. I understand it is not only common practice but "a very good idea" to carry a firearm for "personal protection" in these parts. In fact, some parts of the USA have made firearm ownership mandatory. But I have no firearm license, and no experience with them. So...

Can I rent / lease a decent high-powered personal firearm while I'm in the USA?

What conditions do I need to meet for me to have such a weapon on me?

As a non-US citizen, what happens to me if I use the weapon, accidentally or deliberately, and I hurt, maim or kill someone?

Can I get insurance to cover any of this?

As a resident of the Bayou City, I really hope you enjoy your stay and Howdy Zep. Houston is really, really, really big. By big I mean spread out and not planned very well so don't think you can get around without a map. There is no zoning so you will see tatoo parlors in the middle of residential areas. I do not think carrying a gun in Houston is a good idea whatever the reason. You may want to ask Tricky, SubG or c0rbin about this as well. People get shot on the freeway for lane crossing for crissakes. Houstonians are good people in their own insane way. Just smile and nod in a knowing sort of way and you will be left alone. Whatever you do, stay away from the parts of Houston that have the word "ward" in their names. I won't go into why.

As a non-US citizen, I am not sure if you can carry in Texas. You may want to check the internet for the correct regulations or ask your counsel. I am serious about enjoying yourself. I have been in Texas for 25 years now and have no intention of leaving.

Ralph

26th November 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
"There are simply a lot of people who feel that the choice to arm oneself should not be forceably removed from them by government unless they have committed an act which forfiets that right."

This explains why some people don't give up their guns. It doesn't explain why they obtained them in the first place.

Perhaps you should go back to the original post for an answer to this question.

I'm sure one reason the individual kept a gun in his house was for the unlikely----but possible situation where he might NEED one.

I asked two questions. One person answered one of those questions and all the other critics ignored them.

#1.....What would you say to the wife of the woman who had the shears to her neck to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?

#2....If it was YOUR wife in that situation...........would you like to have access to a firearm and if not---what would you prefer instead???..............

OK..maybe thats 3 questions ...............but I'd love to hear some answers to a very difficult situation...............

clk

26th November 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?

Ralph, I find your recurring use of this strawman strange. As I've pointed out to you several times, nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone. I haven't seen anyone state that the husband should not have had a gun. I don't know why you keep asking that question...

Ralph

26th November 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by clk

Ralph, I find your recurring use of this strawman strange. As I've pointed out to you several times, nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone. I haven't seen anyone state that the husband should not have had a gun. I don't know why you keep asking that question...

I think I'd have to disagree with you about "nobody is saying that guns should be outlawed or taken away from someone". Richard did kind of get "piled on" for his post.

That may be your position......but I think I've seen a few people argue in this, and other gun threads that guns ARE the problem & possibly should be taken away from people.

I'm also getting a kick out of how people just refuse to give a straight answer to a few simple questions........but I would genuinely like to hear some alternative (non-gun)solutions to this situation.......

clk

26th November 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I'm also getting a kick out of how people just refuse to give a straight answer to a few simple questions........but I would genuinely like to hear some alternative (non-gun)solutions to this situation.......

That's because nobody is saying that guns are completely useless for self-defense. A gun would obviously be useful in that situation, I don't think anyone could say otherwise. However, I think most people are arguing that the world would not be a better place if everyone carried a gun around with them. RichardG is posting stories that show examples of how guns were used in self defense. However, I think he is implying that their usefulness in those situations demonstrate how "good" guns are. Other posters are pointing out that guns are also "bad" by posting stories that demonstrate how guns are used to kill innocent people.

Ralph

26th November 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by clk

That's because nobody is saying that guns are completely useless for self-defense. A gun would obviously be useful in that situation, I don't think anyone could say otherwise. However, I think most people are arguing that the world would not be a better place if everyone carried a gun around with them. RichardG is posting stories that show examples of how guns were used in self defense. However, I think he is implying that their usefulness in those situations demonstrate how "good" guns are. Other posters are pointing out that guns are also "bad" by posting stories that demonstrate how guns are used to kill innocent people.

...and nobody's saying that "everybody" should carry a gun. I don't think convicted felons should have guns. I don't think that mentally unstable people should have guns. I don't think people should be allowed to have automatic weapons.

I do think that "bad gun" stories where someone is shot are going to far outnumber "deterrent" situations....where violence is avoided and NOBODY is shot......because the potential victim was armed.

At any rate...even if there are 55% "bad gun" incidents vs. 45% "good gun" incidents.......that doesn't mean law abiding citizens should be made to disarm. Had this incident occured in a "gun free" city like London or Boston......his wife would probably be dead now..........

You may not be arguing for the disarming of citizens......but others are.........that's exactly what's happened in those cities.

Zep

26th November 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by NightG1
As a resident of the Bayou City, I really hope you enjoy your stay and Howdy Zep. Houston is really, really, really big. By big I mean spread out and not planned very well so don't think you can get around without a map. There is no zoning so you will see tatoo parlors in the middle of residential areas. I do not think carrying a gun in Houston is a good idea whatever the reason. You may want to ask Tricky, SubG or c0rbin about this as well. People get shot on the freeway for lane crossing for crissakes. Houstonians are good people in their own insane way. Just smile and nod in a knowing sort of way and you will be left alone. Whatever you do, stay away from the parts of Houston that have the word "ward" in their names. I won't go into why.

As a non-US citizen, I am not sure if you can carry in Texas. You may want to check the internet for the correct regulations or ask your counsel. I am serious about enjoying yourself. I have been in Texas for 25 years now and have no intention of leaving. Howdy, NightG1!

Somewhere up above I was informed that, as a foreign visitor, I'm not allowed to carry firearms at any time anywhere in the whole USA. And if you read further on you will see my dilemma - is the USA, or parts of it, so dreadful that I should not go there without arming myself? Perhaps I should just not go to the USA just in case? Alternatively, are the problems being overstated so that the "carry a gun for self-defence" idea is really just a beat-up?

I think the latter...

Zep

26th November 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

...and nobody's saying that "everybody" should carry a gun. I don't think convicted felons should have guns. I don't think that mentally unstable people should have guns. I don't think people should be allowed to have automatic weapons.Why, Ralph! You sound just like a ... gun-control advocate???!!!

Ralph

26th November 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Why, Ralph! You sound just like a ... gun-control advocate???!!!

I am very much in favor of gun control Zep.........

If you would like to take a walk down my street at night---I think you'll be very safe.........lot's of gun owners here....none of who have the slightest interest in harming someone just out for a walk
through the neigborhood.....

I'd be interested in your answer to those questions though.........

Zep

26th November 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I am very much in favor of gun control Zep.........

If you would like to take a walk down my street at night---I think you'll be very safe.........lot's of gun owners here....none of who have the slightest interest in harming someone just out for a walk
through the neigborhood.....

Unless one of them decides that I look too much like a Muslim, or a burglar, or something else they don't like, and takes a shot at me "just in case". Yep, your neighbourhood sounds REAL safe, but not for me...

I'd be interested in your answer to those questions though.........
#1.....What would you say to the wife of the woman who had the shears to her neck to convince her that her husband shouldn't have had a gun?What would she think if the husband had got really jumpy, shot, missed the bad guy and got her instead? He was 73 years old, and she jumped out of the way before he shot at the bad guy, so I would say that she did the dangerous action stuff. And the fact that an old lady could get out of his grasp would indicate that the burglar was either not very strong or not very bright.#2....If it was YOUR wife in that situation...........would you like to have access to a firearm and if not---what would you prefer instead???..............No, I would NOT like to have access to a firearm. I would much prefer a baseball bat or similar (locally, a cricket bat). Knowing my wife, she would not be in a position to be able to pull away from anyone holding her, as happened in this case, so I would much prefer a weapon that I know will be both threatening and can be used accurately at close range. A baseball bat up side the ear would be just fine...

Thanz

27th November 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by shanek

A simple Google search reveals several organizations.
You have missed the point. Why do you think that, as a Canadian, I am aware of the NRA but not any Canadian organizations? Could it possibly be that Canadian culture is not as obsessed with guns and gun ownership as those in the USA?

Meaning what? The Canadian government isn't as representative as ours maybe?
Meaning that Canada is much more focussed on important issues like education and health care. I don't see how special interest lobbying groups like the NRA having significant political clout makes your government more "representative".

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.
Like who? That sounds like a big strawman argument. I could just as easily say that gun advocates say that guns are perfectly safe and then refute this argument with an anecdote of an accidental home shooting. Would you accept that as a valid argument/refutation?

shanek

27th November 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
You have missed the point. Why do you think that, as a Canadian, I am aware of the NRA but not any Canadian organizations?

Only you are responsible for what you are or are not aware of.

Meaning that Canada is much more focussed on important issues like education and health care. I don't see how special interest lobbying groups like the NRA having significant political clout makes your government more "representative".

Oh, sure, who cares about the will of the people?

Like who?

Well, look at Zep's post directly above yours, for example.

That sounds like a big strawman argument.

Except that it isn't.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Whereas many of those on the other side insist that guns are useless for self-defense, an argument that these "anecdotes" soundly refutes.

Anyone who actually claims this is either an idiot or is being overly general and is saying this in context of the "uselessness" being of a statistical nature, not that there is literally no possible circumstance that a gun would be useful.

This statement is, in that light, a strawman. It is a formulation of an argument either never made, made in a particular context or made by a drooling idiot and presented as a general statement of those favoring restrictions on guns.

Do you really believe that there are many people that believe that guns are literally useless for self defense, that there are never circumstances that guns can be used to protect one's self from harm? It looks to me like you have some need to believe that those that disagree with you are idiots, or at least nowhere near as smart as you are. I find that quite weak.

The fact is that the anti-gun argument isn't that self defense is impossible, rather that when taken as a whole guns used for self defense are much more likely to cause harm than to prevent it. Anecdotes are competely irrelevent to this argument.

When this argument is discussed it always makes me think of a poker game. I play a fair bit of a game called "texas holdem," where each player is given two cards that are to combine with 5 cards belonging to all players, best 5 card hand winning the pot. To simplify, a large part of the strategy is to decide which two card starting hands to play and which ones to throw away. The savvy player plays only good hands, like a pair of aces ("A-A") and tosses bad hands like a seven and a two ("7-2").

Why? Well, in the long run the A-A will show a profit, the 7-2 will show a loss. Hovever, in the short run in one particular hand when the savvy player has the aces and the poor player has 7-2, the board could wind up "772KQ" thus giving the 7-2 player a full house. There are many players that can't stand the idea of tossing crappy starter hands as they believe "you never know" as the board could be anything and that "any two cards can win." I like players like that. More specifically, I like their money, a lot of which is in my possession.

How does this tie into guns? Anti-gun people believe that in general having a handgun in the home is like playing that 7-2. Sure there are times that the makes a full house and you bust everybody, but far more often the result is negative, family members shot, gun stolen, etc. Every statistic I have seen indicates that gun ownership is a losing play in the long run, and only a fool or gambling addict goes against the odds. That's why I like poker, people with a poor grasp of these concepts, those that believe they are "lucky" or "special" lose and I take their money. Very theraputic.

Whenever I see an anecdote where a person defends his/her person from harm with a gun it makes me think of those guys that have such a look of smug satisfaction when they table a crap hand like 7-2 or J-4 to take down a pot over another players pair of kings.

They wind up broke, usually sooner but sometimes later. I don't really care, I'm sure they are having a good time and will lie to themselves later, that they lose because they are unlucky, or whatever. That doesn't bother me, because those poor decisions don't kill people.

Thanz

27th November 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Only you are responsible for what you are or are not aware of.
Nice slipslide. The fact is that the NRA receives major media attention and the Canadian organizations do not. Why? Probably because Canadians do not view gun ownership in the same light as those in the USA.

Oh, sure, who cares about the will of the people?
How is the NRA the "will of the people"? At best, it is the will of some of the people. And the will of the people gets determined through things like elections. Or are you agreeing that policy should be driven by groups like the NRA greasing politicians?

Except that it isn't.
It most certainly is a strawman, but Suddenly has already covered this point quite excellently.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 07:58 AM

Why should anyone buy a fire-extinguisher? An insurance policy? A spare tire in your car?

There is no good reason why a man should not carry a firearm.

There are those who are queasy about bearing such responsibility, and others whos stomachs and hyper-sensitive sensibilities cannot endure the presence of such an inanimate object. I think there also are those who do not trust themselves with a firearm. I do not share such illogical feelings, or suffer from these inadequacies.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Why should anyone buy a fire-extinguisher? An insurance policy? A spare tire in your car?

There is no good reason why a man should not carry a firearm.

1) Fire extinguisher: Lack of long-run negatives. Cost of item and maintanance plus possible negative effects outweighed by positive application.

2) Insurance policy. From an economic view this is a long term negative. From a pure game perspective statistically you are better off in the long run without it. However, the purpose of an insurance policy is not economic benefit per se, but rather to prevent destructive variance.
While if we do the math we figure out that my car insurance payments are actually going to be more than than what I am likely to lose via accident, I still have insurance as the magnitude of a large accident could destroy me financially, and thus in practical reality cause harm beyond the specific financial setback.

A gun serves no such purpose, if anything it magnifies variance in that it brings more potential for violence for the situation. Or if you insist on this analogy then the cost of the gun in terms of negative outcome is still to high for the purpose it serves. Would you spend $5,000/mo. for car insurance on your '75 Gremlin?

3) Spare tire: See #1 "Fire Extinguisher."

My response to this in kind would be to wonder why Richard G doesn't carry around a full Haz-Mat suit whenever he leaves the house? You never know when a chemical spill is going to happen, a big truck jack-knifing or whatever. Nasty stuff everywhere and there is Richard, shamefully unprepared as he doesn't have his suit that would allow him to save that family of five trapped by the spill...

The reason you don't wear that suit every where you go (I hope) is that the costs of that action far outweighs the possible befefits. This is called acting rationally.

A safety measure that creates more danger than it prevents is not a good thing, and when most of that harm is directed outward and most benefits inward, it is suitable subject matter for government regulation.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 08:30 AM

A safety measure that creates more danger than it prevents is not a good thing

You are flat wrong if you are refering to carrying a firearm. No danger is created carrying a firearm. Here is where those hyper-sensitive sensibilities come to light.

A firearm is life insurance. No firearm is "good" or "bad". The only danger created comes from a dumb-ass that negligently handles guns, or a criminal, who intentionaly goes out to do harm.

I am neither. And there are 90 million other individuals just like me in the country, who are no danger to themselves, or anyone else.

Thanz

27th November 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
You are flat wrong if you are refering to carrying a firearm. No danger is created carrying a firearm. Here is where those hyper-sensitive sensibilities come to light.

A firearm is life insurance.
You refer to hyper-sensitive sensibilities of those who oppose guns in the home, but you don't seem to think that it cannot also be applied to you. I'd say that you have the hyper-sensitive sensibility more commonly referred to as paranoia.

A firearm is life insurance? Please. I do just fine without it, and so has my family, for years. Those who feel a need for a firearm for home security are simply paranoid.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:05 AM

Yeah, yeah. Ted Nugent said it best: To my mind, it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic....

BillyTK

27th November 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
A firearm is life insurance.
And a sword is home insurance:
Swordswoman, 80, fights burglars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3239178.stm)
An 80-year-old woman used a ceremonial sword to fight off two six-foot raiders who burst into her home.

[...]

The widow wrestled with one of the burglars and brandished the weapon at the other.

Her actions forced the pair of teenagers to flee empty-handed from her home in Broadstone, Poole, Dorset on Sunday.

"I have still got my sword and I am ready to use it if anyone else should have a go ."

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Yeah, yeah. Ted Nugent said it best:

Why do you feel that you need a weapon to defend yourself?

Have you so little confidence in your own resources?

Graham

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:12 AM

I've got nothing against swords. The reason the old woman is forced to use one, is because the goverment stole hew guns.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

You are flat wrong if you are refering to carrying a firearm. No danger is created carrying a firearm. Here is where those hyper-sensitive sensibilities come to light. The suggestion that firearms present no danger is just silly. Rather than ridicule you for this I'll ask you to clarify whether you are seriously contending that a firearms present no danger.

A firearm is life insurance. No firearm is "good" or "bad". The only danger created comes from a dumb-ass that negligently handles guns, or a criminal, who intentionaly goes out to do harm. Which suggests that guns do in some circumstances present a danger. This contradicts your above point. The problem is when statistics suggest that the negative effects outnumber the positive effects. This suggests that society is far better off with more effective controlls in order to minimize negative effects, like registration to help combat theft, as well as mandatory training and certification as a requirement for ownership.

I am neither. And there are 90 million other individuals just like me in the country, who are no danger to themselves, or anyone else.
You are not a competent witness to your own attributes; that is why it makes sense to have third party certification that you are of a class of owner that is more likely to do more good than harm. For all I know, you could very well be a "dumb-ass." I have no idea. I do know a lot of people that are "dumb-asses" and I doubt they would admit it either.

There are probobly 90 million people that play crappy poker hands thinking that "they" can get away with it. Those people make me money. Gun owners that fixate on unlikely events while ignoring likely costs in the form of more likely outcomes present a more direct danger to my well being.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:15 AM

Have you so little confidence in your own resources?

I have ultimate confidence in my rescources. And I keep them all loaded.

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

I have ultimate confidence in my rescources. And I keep them all loaded.

Funny guy. Your use of the quote from Ted Nugent suggests that you believe a person is not capable of "preventing violence, injury, crime, and death" without a firearm.

How feeble is the mindset that requires a weapon to give it courage and strength. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic....

Graham

Thanz

27th November 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Yeah, yeah. Ted Nugent said it best:
No amount of useless jibes will make me believe that I need a gun for personal protection.

Here's a tip: Not carrying a gun is not equivalent to "accepting defenselessness".

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:23 AM

Don't be a half-wit Grahm. If someone sticks a .357 in your face, all your rescources are going to be running down your leg.

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
How is the NRA the "will of the people"?

And you just accused ME of slipsliding? :rolleyes: We were talking about the ability of citizens to lobby the government and the role of such groups in a representative government; you only mentioned the NRA as an example.

I don't see how special interest lobbying groups like the NRA having significant political clout makes your government more "representative".

Direct quote. Why don't you try standing by your assertions for once?

At best, it is the will of some of the people.

And other groups represent the will of some of the other people. Or are you saying there are no gun control lobbying groups?

And the will of the people gets determined through things like elections.

I see you missed that whole "petition the government for a redress of grievances" thing...

It most certainly is a strawman,

Then explain how Zep's post above is not an example of this.

Thanz

27th November 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Don't be a half-wit. If someone sticks a .357 in your face, all your rescources are going to be running down your leg.
The chances of anyone pointing a .357 in my face are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a firearm. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
2) Insurance policy. From an economic view this is a long term negative. From a pure game perspective statistically you are better off in the long run without it. However, the purpose of an insurance policy is not economic benefit per se, but rather to prevent destructive variance.
While if we do the math we figure out that my car insurance payments are actually going to be more than than what I am likely to lose via accident, I still have insurance as the magnitude of a large accident could destroy me financially, and thus in practical reality cause harm beyond the specific financial setback.

A gun serves no such purpose, if anything it magnifies variance in that it brings more potential for violence for the situation.

Hmmm...you just said this was a strawman, now here you are saying the exact same thing! If anything, a gun is more efficient than insurance since its purchase, upkeep, and even firearm training is not as great as insurance and has just as much of a capacity to save your life. Only by ignoring that can you say a gun "serves no such purpose." And people bring violence to a situation, not guns. The gun just gives you a means of defending yourself against the violence of others.

My response to this in kind would be to wonder why Richard G doesn't carry around a full Haz-Mat suit whenever he leaves the house?

If you're going to go around equating a gun to a Haz-Mat suit, then you're going to be seriously strained for credibility...

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:32 AM

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

And a sword is home insurance:
Swordswoman, 80, fights burglars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3239178.stm)

And if anyone goes around advocating sword control, I will fight just as vigorously for the right to keep and bear swords.

(BTW, I seem to recall reading that Japan tried a bit of sword control once, and it didn't work out quite as well as they had planned...)

The Don

27th November 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Don't be a half-wit Grahm. If someone sticks a .357 in your face, all your rescources are going to be running down your leg.

It's amazing how irregularly this happens to me......

It's like wearing a crash helmet all the time just in case a chimney falls on top of you (in fact I know more people (1) who've died from chimney splattage than have been killed during the course of a crime).

In fact it's more ludicrous becuase at least you don't present a danger to others (I (used to) know two people who were shot, and killed, by accident)

You like to carry a gun RichardG because you want to feel like a "real" man

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which suggests that guns do in some circumstances present a danger.

That very important qualifier was conspicuously missing from your earlier comments.

This suggests that society is far better off with more effective controlls in order to minimize negative effects, like registration to help combat theft,

How does registration help combat theft?

as well as mandatory training and certification as a requirement for ownership.

Yes, that should work every bit as well as drivers licenses and other forms of government licensing...

For all I know, you could very well be a "dumb-ass." I have no idea. I do know a lot of people that are "dumb-asses" and I doubt they would admit it either.

How is it even any of your business? Unless and until that dumb-ass actually initiates force against you, his dumb-ass-ness is not harming you at all.

Gun owners that fixate on unlikely events

:rolleyes: As both the news stories and the statistics show, these events are far from unlikely.

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by shanek

If you're going to go around equating a gun to a Haz-Mat suit, then you're going to be seriously strained for credibility...

Why do you say this?

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
No amount of useless jibes will make me believe that I need a gun for personal protection.

Fair enough. Just don't go around saying that no one else needs one, either.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:42 AM

By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

I don't obsess at all. I simply enjoy arguing with skitish gun phobes all over the net.

(I (used to) know two people who were shot, and killed, by accident)

No one is shot and killed by "accident". They were negligent, and stupid. Their big fat finger on the trigger, with no safety on, and the firearm pointed in an unsafe direction, resulted in their deaths. Safe handling, and adhering to some very simple safety rules results in zero negligent discharges.

The Don

27th November 2003, 09:44 AM

Ha!

Infallibility results in no accidents. Since when were humans infallible ?

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
The chances of anyone pointing a .357 in my face are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a firearm. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, there is a home fire 1.3 minutes in the US. Even if you go by the lower numbers of DGUs presented by the gun control advocates in rebuttal of the Lott/Kleck figures, that's still one DGU every 1.05 minutes in the US. So you are more likely to find yourself in a position where a firearm will be an effective tool for protection than you are to have a fire in your home.

So, would you agree with the following statement?

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

The Don

27th November 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Fair enough. Just don't go around saying that no one else needs one, either.

Why not, their being armed may present a danger to me. Not everybody who carried a gun is as diligent and well trained as RichardG.

I realise banning things to avoid a few bad apples ruining it for everybody is quite a poor argument, but if you look at the number of accidental deaths where the person killed was not the one with the gun, you may want to consider whether these people deserve some level of protection

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Graham
Why do you say this?

Are you SERIOUS????

DavidJames

27th November 2003, 09:49 AM

Now that Ted Nugent has been brought in, I offer this...

Those that randomly send out emails touting their penis enlarger products would do well to target their marketing by purchasing NRA mailing lists.

Okay, let's hear more from Ted.

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Are you SERIOUS????

- shrug - pretty much, why?

If the argument is that one should carry a gun in case one is ever attacked with a gun, why not wear a HazMat suit in case one is ever attacked with a chemical weapon?

Is it just a question of the odds?

Graham

Graham

27th November 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

A fire extinguisher costs upwards of €40.

Fire insurance costs, let's say, €200 a year.

Other than the expense, there is no downside to owning either of these items.

There is a downside to owning a firearm (as well as a financial cost - purchase price, training, maintenence?, licences?)

Graham.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 09:58 AM

I'll give you a serious answer. A gun is much easier to carry, and does not interfere with ones daily activities at all. I'm a haz-mat technician, suits are 800 dollar, one use items. They are hot, and uncomfortable. One word....IMPRACTICAL.

A firearm is unobtusive, takes up no more space on my belt than a cell phone, and is much more practical.

When is the last time you read about a chemical attack? How about a shooting/mugging/robbery/violent crime?

What a silly argument.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 11:02 AM

Bar Owner Kills Two Robbers With Single Shot
Two suspected robbers are dead after a former police officer and owner of a Detroit bar fired a single shot, Local 4 reported.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1014101/posts

Ralph

27th November 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Zep
What would she think if the husband had got really jumpy, shot, missed the bad guy and got her instead? He was 73 years old, and she jumped out of the way before he shot at the bad guy, so I would say that she did the dangerous action stuff. And the fact that an old lady could get out of his grasp would indicate that the burglar was either not very strong or not very bright.No, I would NOT like to have access to a firearm. I would much prefer a baseball bat or similar (locally, a cricket bat). Knowing my wife, she would not be in a position to be able to pull away from anyone holding her, as happened in this case, so I would much prefer a weapon that I know will be both threatening and can be used accurately at close range. A baseball bat up side the ear would be just fine... [/QUOTE]

Before you come to the U.S. Zep you may want to consider shaving first. (assuming you have a beard).

That way you won't be mistaken for one of those damn Muslims.

In fact.....just to be doubly safe......I'd suggest you not wear the color "green" either.....................unless of course you're up my way near Boston.

If you wear green around here....people will just associate you with being Irish, not Islamic.

Unless of course you haven't shaved your beard. Someone might shoot you then.......just in case.

As always.... I stand in awe of your amazing abilities to disarm,
armed criminals. I think you should write a book.

Will your techniques work as well on strong,smart criminals or are they only effective on the weak,stupid ones????

What about a smart but weak criminal?????

Or maybe a stupid but strong criminal.......can I still use a bat here??????????.................................

Ralph

27th November 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by The Don

It's amazing how irregularly this happens to me......

It's like wearing a crash helmet all the time just in case a chimney falls on top of you (in fact I know more people (1) who've died from chimney splattage than have been killed during the course of a crime).

In fact it's more ludicrous becuase at least you don't present a danger to others (I (used to) know two people who were shot, and killed, by accident)

You like to carry a gun RichardG because you want to feel like a "real" man

What about the couple in the original post. How "irregular" an event was it to them.......

It's nice to sit behind a computer and talk about probabilities.....until you're the one that winds up on the short end of things........

Ralph

27th November 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by DavidJames
Now that Ted Nugent has been brought in, I offer this...

Those that randomly send out emails touting their penis enlarger products would do well to target their marketing by purchasing NRA mailing lists.

Okay, let's hear more from Ted.

Translation...............I can't think of anything intelligent to say so I'll resort to the "they're insecure about their penises" arguement.

Thanz

27th November 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by shanek

According to the National Fire Protection Association, there is a home fire 1.3 minutes in the US. Even if you go by the lower numbers of DGUs presented by the gun control advocates in rebuttal of the Lott/Kleck figures, that's still one DGU every 1.05 minutes in the US. So you are more likely to find yourself in a position where a firearm will be an effective tool for protection than you are to have a fire in your home.

So, would you agree with the following statement?

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.
Before I answer your questions, what is a DGU? I am unfamiliar with the term.

edited to add:

Never mind, I think I have found it - Defensive Gun Use. I do not understand why you are using stats that show instances per minute - why does that make a difference? Wouldn't numbers per population or household make more sense than per minute?

Anyway, I do not agree with your statement for a number of reasons. First of all, I live in Toronto and so far this year we have had a total of 58 homocides, 26 of which were caused by guns. In a city of over 2.5 million people. I think you would be hard pressed to find any similarly sized American city with rates like these.

Second, I have the smallest house in a very good neighbourhood on a busy street, and I have an alarm system. The risk/reward ratio for any potential criminal is simply too high for them to bother attempting to break in.

Third, my life revolves around my family and work. I do not find myself out late at night, or in shadier neighbourhoods, or in other situations that may be more condusive to violence.

However, I do cook. And I do have a fireplace. And I love candles. The costs of fire insurance and a fire extinguisher are not that great. The potential for an accident with fire insurance or a fire extinguisher are nil, and even if a fire extinguisher fell on my toe - the most I'd get is a bruised or broken toe. With a firearm and children in the house, there is a greater potential for an accident. And even if the odds of that happening are very very small, the potential downside of such an accident could be devastating.

So, in short, your stats do not sway me one bit. The cost benefit analysis for my situation comes down squarely on the side of obtaining fire protection equipment and insurance, and not obtaining a gun.

Further, if I am carrying a gun, then potentially needing that gun must be on my mind far more often than fire insurance or a fire extinguisher. Picking your gun up everyday is far more "living in fear" than getting a fire extinguisher.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

No. I don't agree with the statement because -and I know this might come as a shock to you- FIRE EXTINGUISHERS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!

In other words: apples and oranges. The mainstay of any good pro-gun argument.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

What about the couple in the original post. How "irregular" an event was it to them.......

It's nice to sit behind a computer and talk about probabilities.....until you're the one that winds up on the short end of things........

It's worth considering when you compare it to how likely you are to get your head blown off by a drunken spouse, or by a kid playing with daddy's gun, or from injury because you forgot -albeit momentarily- the 'it's always loaded' rule, or by a junky who stole it from your house -gun safe or not. The list goes on. Common element: The gun.

So, let's weigh up the number of times a hostage situation has been successfully resolved with the use of a gun compared to deaths by gun. We'll even just keep the gun deaths to accidental. Should be funny.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It's worth considering when you compare it to how likely you are to get your head blown off by a drunken spouse, or by a kid playing with daddy's gun, or from injury because you forgot -albeit momentarily- the 'it's always loaded' rule, or by a junky who stole it from your house -gun safe or not. The list goes on. Common element: The gun.

So, let's weigh up the number of times a hostage situation has been successfully resolved with the use of a gun compared to deaths by gun. We'll even just keep the gun deaths to accidental. Should be funny.

What's funny is right after Richard posted this the response was "we're sick & tired of Richard posting ALL these articles about self-defense involving guns".

Then it turns to " Oh --self defense involving guns is so rare it's not worth considering".....So what is it. An event that's as likely to occur as me becoming the next Pope......or does it happen so often that "people are sick of hearing about it"????

As I mentioned......you're ignoring the many situations where nobody was injured at all because the gun acted as a deterrent.
An intruder exiting a home at the sound of round being chambered doesn't make the news. As usual you're distorting reality to fit your own view of things.

How would you answer the questions I posed earlier about what heppened to this couple?????????

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

What's funny is right after Richard posted this the response was "we're sick & tired of Richard posting ALL these articles about self-defense involving guns".

Then it turns to " Oh --self defense involving guns is so rare it's not worth considering".....So what is it. An event that's as likely to occur as me becoming the next Pope......or does it happen so often that "people are sick of hearing about it"????

As I mentioned......you're ignoring the many situations where nobody was injured at all because the gun acted as a deterrent.
An intruder exiting a home at the sound of round being chambered doesn't make the news. As usual you're distorting reality to fit your own view of things.

How would you answer the questions I posed earlier about what heppened to this couple?????????

Hey! Save some of the question marks for the rest of us!

I didn't say, "I'm sick of Richard posting ALL these articles about self defense", I said it's anecdotal evidence. It doesn't paint the full picture. You need to find more solid evidence to back up your claims.

As to how I'd answer the questions about 'what happened to the other couple?????????????????????????????', I'd counter it with another question: What would you say to the 13 year old boy who accidentally blew his dad's head off in front of his two sisters?

Can you see the problem with anecdotes yet?

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

As I mentioned......you're ignoring the many situations where nobody was injured at all because the gun acted as a deterrent.
An intruder exiting a home at the sound of round being chambered doesn't make the news. As usual you're distorting reality to fit your own view of things.

This is just sad. Why don't you find some statistics on the number of home entries while someone was home vs home entries when no-one was home? I'd look for it... but it's your argument. You need to back up the claim.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Before I answer your questions, what is a DGU? I am unfamiliar with the term.

edited to add:

Never mind, I think I have found it - Defensive Gun Use. I do not understand why you are using stats that show instances per minute - why does that make a difference? Wouldn't numbers per population or household make more sense than per minute?

Anyway, I do not agree with your statement for a number of reasons. First of all, I live in Toronto and so far this year we have had a total of 58 homocides, 26 of which were caused by guns. In a city of over 2.5 million people. I think you would be hard pressed to find any similarly sized American city with rates like these.

Second, I have the smallest house in a very good neighbourhood on a busy street, and I have an alarm system. The risk/reward ratio for any potential criminal is simply too high for them to bother attempting to break in.

Third, my life revolves around my family and work. I do not find myself out late at night, or in shadier neighbourhoods, or in other situations that may be more condusive to violence.

However, I do cook. And I do have a fireplace. And I love candles. The costs of fire insurance and a fire extinguisher are not that great. The potential for an accident with fire insurance or a fire extinguisher are nil, and even if a fire extinguisher fell on my toe - the most I'd get is a bruised or broken toe. With a firearm and children in the house, there is a greater potential for an accident. And even if the odds of that happening are very very small, the potential downside of such an accident could be devastating.

So, in short, your stats do not sway me one bit. The cost benefit analysis for my situation comes down squarely on the side of obtaining fire protection equipment and insurance, and not obtaining a gun.

Further, if I am carrying a gun, then potentially needing that gun must be on my mind far more often than fire insurance or a fire extinguisher. Picking your gun up everyday is far more "living in fear" than getting a fire extinguisher.

You have a perfect right to decide whether or not you need a Hazmat suit, a fire extinguisher, or a gun. I'm glad you live in a safe neighborhood.

Maybe the neighborhood the couple in the post lived in wasn't as safe as your neighborhood. Should they have been denied the right to protect themselves???

Even though everyone is claiming it's unlikely---these people found themselves in a situation where a gun was needed.
Unless they had Zeps skills at disarming thugs with knives......a gun - and nothing else-may have prevented a tragedy.

Shouldn't they be allowed to assess their own level of risk as you did.?

Quote stats all you want but the odds of you coming to harm because HE owned a gun are pretty slim...........

Ralph

27th November 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Hey! Save some of the question marks for the rest of us!

I didn't say, "I'm sick of Richard posting ALL these articles about self defense", I said it's anecdotal evidence. It doesn't paint the full picture. You need to find more solid evidence to back up your claims.

As to how I'd answer the questions about 'what happened to the other couple?????????????????????????????', I'd counter it with another question: What would you say to the 13 year old boy who accidentally blew his dad's head off in front of his two sisters?

Can you see the problem with anecdotes yet? Tragedies happen all the time. When a child gets ahold of a gun it's almost always because of negligence on an adults part.

I grew up in a house with guns and somehow managed to never shoot anybody.

I also have children myself. My kids were taught basic gun safety rules and there has NEVER been an unlocked gun in my house. They haven't shot me yet.

You can't legislate against stupidy. A lot more kids die in swimming pools,because they weren't wearing seatbelts, or from ingesting RX meds than from accidental gun deaths and we don't outlaw these things.

There---I answered your question......Now for once in your life maybe you could give a straight answer to my questions instead of avoiding issues that don't back your own view of things.....

Thanz

27th November 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Maybe the neighborhood the couple in the post lived in wasn't as safe as your neighborhood. Should they have been denied the right to protect themselves???

Even though everyone is claiming it's unlikely---these people found themselves in a situation where a gun was needed.
Unless they had Zeps skills at disarming thugs with knives......a gun - and nothing else-may have prevented a tragedy.

Shouldn't they be allowed to assess their own level of risk as you did.?

Quote stats all you want but the odds of you coming to harm because HE owned a gun are pretty slim...........
I was commenting on the apparent cultural bias in the USA towards the need to own a gun for personal safety. Nothing that I have seen in this thread dissuades me from my belief that there is a cultural bias towards gun ownership in the USA, and that it is needed for personal protection. We just don't have the same need here in Canada. And, I think that the need is overstated for a lot of Americans.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

There---I answered your question......Now for once in your life maybe you could give a straight answer to my questions instead of avoiding issues that don't back your own view of things.....

I beg your pardon? I did answer your question. You want to know what I'd say to hostages 'saved' by guns- I say that it doesn't balance the number of deaths by guns. The shears case is one example- how do we know that the situation would have ended in the death of an innocent person without a gun? The whole point of taking a hostage is that you don't kill the hostage unless you have to. Otherwise, you have no bargaining power.

In fact, the shooter's actions were stupid. It was just dumb luck the robber didn't manage to kill his wife- he didn't die right away (you rarely do when you're shot), he might have only been wounded or missed altogether. Then the story would have been quite different.

So, if I had to speak to him? I'd call him 'idiot', and nothing more. Safety instructors always tell you: give the robbers what they want- the things they want aren't worth your life. Gun nuts don't understand this. They see giving in to a robber as a threat to their machismo. No, you have to shoot the guy like you're John Wayne. I guess if it keeps up long enough, we'll see the day where robbers don't take hostages- they'll just kill everyone in the house and take what they want.

Meanwhile- you still haven't established how often it is that robberies occur while someone is at home. This is important for your case- you have to balance the usefulness of the high availablity of guns against the number of gun deaths.

Thanz

27th November 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I also have children myself. My kids were taught basic gun safety rules and there has NEVER been an unlocked gun in my house. They haven't shot me yet.

That's good. But how will a locked up gun help you if there is an intruder in your home? Do you think that you will be able to quickly get your gun in the event that you need it?

The point that I am making is that those who genuinely feel the "need", rational or not, for a gun for home security purposes are more likely to keep the gun accessible than someone who has a gun for target shooting or hunting. And I also believe that the danger of an accessible gun outweighs the risks of a home invasion, particularly when there are other non-life threatening measures against intruders.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I beg your pardon? I did answer your question. You want to know what I'd say to hostages 'saved' by guns- I say that it doesn't balance the number of deaths by guns. The shears case is one example- how do we know that the situation would have ended in the death of an innocent person without a gun? The whole point of taking a hostage is that you don't kill the hostage unless you have to. Otherwise, you have no bargaining power.

In fact, the shooter's actions were stupid. It was just dumb luck the robber didn't manage to kill his wife- he didn't die right away (you rarely do when you're shot), he might have only been wounded or missed altogether. Then the story would have been quite different.

So, if I had to speak to him? I'd call him 'idiot', and nothing more. Safety instructors always tell you: give the robbers what they want- the things they want aren't worth your life. Gun nuts don't understand this. They see giving in to a robber as a threat to their machismo. No, you have to shoot the guy like you're John Wayne. I guess if it keeps up long enough, we'll see the day where robbers don't take hostages- they'll just kill everyone in the house and take what they want.

Meanwhile- you still haven't established how often it is that robberies occur while someone is at home. This is important for your case- you have to balance the usefulness of the high availablity of guns against the number of gun deaths.

"Idiot"????................Well--neither of us were there Manifesto
so we can only speculate on the circumstances. I've never been in a situation like that and hope I NEVER have to make the kind of decision this guy was faced with.

That's nice that you can sit there and assume the hostage taker will be rational. I'd suggest that someone who breaks into someone elses home and puts a pair of shears to a womans neck might not be counted on to act rationally.

Along with having the shears at the wifes neck---was he acting in an agitated way??? Was he making verbal threats that he was going to kill someone??? Did he reek of alcohol??....eyes bugging out & bloodshot????

The guy had a horrible decision to make. Maybe you'd be more worried about your image in a similar situation but I think this guy just felt it the only sensible thing to do to save his wife's life. To say he's only thinking of his machismo makes me wonder if you know what it's like to love someone. Do you have a wife?....kids????

His wife is still alive---the intruder is dead. I'd say he made the right call.

You used the term "gun-nut". What's the difference between a "gun-nut" and a "gun-owner"?

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

"Idiot"????................Well--neither of us were there Manifesto
so we can only speculate on the circumstances. I've never been in a situation like that and hope I NEVER have to make the kind of decision this guy was faced with.

That's nice that you can sit there and assume the hostage taker will be rational. I'd suggest that someone who breaks into someone elses home and puts a pair of shears to a womans neck might not be counted on to act rationally.

Along with having the shears at the wifes neck---was he acting in an agitated way??? Was he making verbal threats that he was going to kill someone??? Did he reek of alcohol??....eyes bugging out & bloodshot????

The guy had a horrible decision to make. Maybe you'd be more worried about your image in a similar situation but I think this guy just felt it the only sensible thing to do to save his wife's life. To say he's only thinking of his machismo makes me wonder if you know what it's like to love someone. Do you have a wife?....kids????

His wife is still alive---the intruder is dead. I'd say he made the right call.

You used the term "gun-nut". What's the difference between a "gun-nut" and a "gun-owner"?

Gun-nut= Someone who has to have his gun with him at all times, no exceptions. Like Richard G.
Gun-owner= Someone who can live with concessions, like the fact that a gun has to be kept off-site (like in a gun club), or essential elements of the gun, such as its ammo, has to be kept off-site. Or even simple concessions such as: you have to prove you can be a responsible owner before you're allowed to own a gun.

You can have guns, just don't make the damn things so available and ready-to-go.

As to your, "I'd say it was a good call" argument, everything's fine in hindsight. There are plenty of stories out there about people who've accidentally shot one of their loved ones thinking they were a burglar.

Agitated or not, I would still rather have an agitated person holding my girlfriend hostage than an agitated wounded person holding her hostage- especially if I was the one who wounded her.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

That's good. But how will a locked up gun help you if there is an intruder in your home? Do you think that you will be able to quickly get your gun in the event that you need it?

The point that I am making is that those who genuinely feel the "need", rational or not, for a gun for home security purposes are more likely to keep the gun accessible than someone who has a gun for target shooting or hunting. And I also believe that the danger of an accessible gun outweighs the risks of a home invasion, particularly when there are other non-life threatening measures against intruders.

I think the majority of accidental gun deaths could be prevented if people had proper training.

Having a gun in the house won't always help. I don't usually wear mine in the shower or when I'm having sex for example.

If 3 guys with shotguns burst in through the front door when I'm screwing......I'm probably screwed.

The best solution to this problem though is a keypad safe. It keeps the gun securely locked up yet would allow reasonably quick access if it was needed.

While it's still possible it could be stolen, I'd say the odds are pretty small if you keep the gun in a hidden key-pad safe and don't advertise to thieves that you have guns in the house......

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

While it's still possible it could be stolen, I'd say the odds are pretty small if you keep the gun in a hidden key-pad safe and don't advertise to thieves that you have guns in the house......

Wrong again. From the Sydney Morning Herald "Good Weekend" supplement 22 November (an investigative article on house thieves in Australia):

Safes put them off- unless they find the keys. Which is always possible because few owners carry safe keys around with them, instead "hiding" them. The boys still laugh about one safe they opened recently after finding the key under a floor mat. "We got a rifle out of it," says Spike.
Even if they can't open a safe there's the risk they will tell someone else it's there, making it a potential target for some more determined crook. Especially a gun safe. As tighter gun laws make guns scarcer, they become hot sellers on the black market."

What's Yours Is Theirs, Andrew Rule
Of course, you don't have this problem in the US. Guns are so freely available that if any burglar happens across a gun safe and they can't find the key to it, they just go to the next house and find a gun that's easier to obtain there. After all, who wants to shell out money for a safe, especially after shelling out for a gun?
The safe can wait... The gun isn't going to get stolen right away.

Zep

27th November 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

Before you come to the U.S. Zep you may want to consider shaving first. (assuming you have a beard).

That way you won't be mistaken for one of those damn Muslims.

Not all Muslims have beards. In fact, few do. And with my swarthy complexion and dark hair, I have often been asked if I'm Lebanese or Arabic. So sarcasm doesn't cut it.

In fact.....just to be doubly safe......I'd suggest you not wear the color "green" either.....................unless of course you're up my way near Boston.

If you wear green around here....people will just associate you with being Irish, not Islamic.

I've worn green in Boston many times (I have a favourite green windcheater), and no-one offered me a Guiness... Why is that? Oh, they didn't shoot at me either.

Unless of course you haven't shaved your beard. Someone might shoot you then.......just in case.

I believe it was you who said that people in your neighbourhood were armed. Why are they armed? Just for fun? And I suppose they are prepared to use these weapons? So how do they know if a person is/is not a threat? Would they wait for a burglar to give them a calling card before they shoot at them? I suspect not...

As always.... I stand in awe of your amazing abilities to disarm,
armed criminals. I think you should write a book.

In this particular instance, you were talking about a burglar who was threatening an old woman by using a pair of shears 4in long (read the story again). I have about my house right now assorted hammers, big spanners, cricket bats, hockey sticks and other similar implements - I have a daughter who is into sport, and I try to do my own house repairs. I think I could deal with such a dumb-ass burglar pretty easily without needing any gun or help. Depends how you say things, doesn't it!

Will your techniques work as well on strong,smart criminals or are they only effective on the weak,stupid ones????

What about a smart but weak criminal?????

I have confidence in my abilities up to a point because I do not live in fear of most people. I'm fairly fast and fairly strong, and I'm also pretty darn smart - certainly smarter than any criminal who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar right in front of me.

Or maybe a stupid but strong criminal.......can I still use a bat here??????????.................................

Would you like to go three rounds with me angry and Mr Cricket Bat? Hmmm? Al Capone used to kill people like that, didn't he? And he was juts a short squirt... But I'm not.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Gun-nut= Someone who has to have his gun with him at all times, no exceptions. Like Richard G.
Gun-owner= Someone who can live with concessions, like the fact that a gun has to be kept off-site (like in a gun club), or essential elements of the gun, such as its ammo, has to be kept off-site. Or even simple concessions such as: you have to prove you can be a responsible owner before you're allowed to own a gun.

You can have guns, just don't make the damn things so available and ready-to-go.

As to your, "I'd say it was a good call" argument, everything's fine in hindsight. There are plenty of stories out there about people who've accidentally shot one of their loved ones thinking they were a burglar.

Agitated or not, I would still rather have an agitated person holding my girlfriend hostage than an agitated wounded person holding her hostage- especially if I was the one who wounded her.

I agree -- someone who carries a gun 24/7 (unless he's in a combat zone) is probably someone who shouldn't have one in the first place.

You've narrowed the field down to a very small group though if that's how you define "gun-nut". I think you'll find most responsible gun owners make reasonable choices as to when they carry.

I don't carry when commuting to work for example, since guns aren't allowed in the building. I'd have to leave the gun in the car & I NEVER leave guns in a car....locked or unlocked. The likihood of the car (and gun) being stolen is far greater than the liklihood of my needing the gun and in this case---my ownership of a firearm would represent a threat to others.

As I mentioned above---I also don't carry in the shower or when having sex. I suppose there's a few women that'd get off on that but my wife isn't one of them so no guns during sex........

If someone had a sharp object to my wife's neck.....I'd prefer seeing him dead..........................

Ralph

27th November 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Zep--do you really believe that I live in a neighbohood where everybody is just sitting around with a gun in hand waiting for an excuse to shoot someone?

If you have your cricket bat.... and I have a 9mm Sig........it wouldn't go 3 rounds....................

Mr Manifesto thought the guy was an idiot for taking down the intruder with a gun............I'm having a hard time convincing myself that If someones got a knife to my wifes throat that I'm better off with a cricket bat in my hand.

Ralph

27th November 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Wrong again. From the Sydney Morning Herald "Good Weekend" supplement 22 November (an investigative article on house thieves in Australia):

What's Yours Is Theirs, Andrew Rule
Of course, you don't have this problem in the US. Guns are so freely available that if any burglar happens across a gun safe and they can't find the key to it, they just go to the next house and find a gun that's easier to obtain there. After all, who wants to shell out money for a safe, especially after shelling out for a gun?
The safe can wait... The gun isn't going to get stolen right away.

I think I mentioned something about a KEYPAD safe. You open it by pushing a memorized pattern of buttons.........mine's never been stolen. Perhaps you can find some statistics on how many guns are stolen from keypad safes...........

Richard G

27th November 2003, 04:47 PM

Safety instructors always tell you: give the robbers what they want- the things they want aren't worth your life.

Idiots say that, and police who are afraid of the crime rate dropping when more armed citizens defend themselves. When crime goes down, their department budgets go down.

You get on all fours, bark like a dog, beg for your life, and do anything else someone tells you to. I will fight. As the head of my family, it is my duty, and responsibility to defend the lives of my children, and wife to my utmost ability, even if I die in the process. Having made such a moral decision, I have prudently provided myseld with the best tools to achieve that end.

Nothing that I have seen in this thread dissuades me from my belief that there is a cultural bias towards gun ownership in the USA

Bias isn't the word for it. Jealously gaurded freedom, ...God given right that pre-dates the Constitution. Thats what your talking about. Americans will not compromise that.

It's worth considering when you compare it to how likely you are to get your head blown off by a drunken spouse, or by a kid playing with daddy's gun, or from injury because you forgot -albeit momentarily- the 'it's always loaded' rule, or by a junky who stole it from your house -gun safe or not. The list goes on. Common element: The gun.

Wrong. The common element is irresponsibility. The same as idiot drivers, people who leave their toddlers unatended by a pool, or home alone.

Gun-owner= Someone who can live with concessions, like the fact that a gun has to be kept off-site (like in a gun club)

Nope. Thats a good subject of the state, pissing away his rights, for the pipe dream idea of a perfect society.

No, you have to shoot the guy like you're John Wayne. I guess if it keeps up long enough, we'll see the day where robbers don't take hostages- they'll just kill everyone in the house and take what they want.

Nope. If it keeps up long enough, robbers will be afraid to commit robbery , because it will be too dangerous. They will risk death, and any sane person who believes in justice shouldn't have a problem with that. If you do, I can only believe one is advocating, and encouraging robbery.

In America, individual rights are the order of the day. Those far outweigh any socialist programs or agenda for the imaginary "common" good.

I don't have to justify why I have, need, or want a firearm. You need to justify why I, me, my individual person, cannot have a firearm. And that is not something you can do. What someone else does with a gun is in no way my responsibility, nor can it dimminish my right. If someone commits a crime with a gun, throw him in a cage. Problem solved.

Only a coward would want fewer good guys with guns on the streets in today's world. Only a fool would support -- much less design -- such a policy of helplessness....To be against law-abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns is literally encouraging and assisting evil to have the upper hand.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Idiots say that, and police who are afraid of the crime rate dropping when more armed citizens defend themselves. When crime goes down, their department budgets go down.

You get on all fours, bark like a dog, beg for your life, and do anything else someone tells you to. I will fight. As the head of my family, it is my duty, and responsibility to defend the lives of my children, and wife to my utmost ability, even if I die in the process. Having made such a moral decision, I have prudently provided myseld with the best tools to achieve that end.

Bias isn't the word for it. Jealously gaurded freedom, ...God given right that pre-dates the Constitution. Thats what your talking about. Americans will not compromise that.

Wrong. The common element is irresponsibility. The same as idiot drivers, people who leave their toddlers unatended by a pool, or home alone.

Nope. Thats a good subject of the state, pissing away his rights, for the pipe dream idea of a perfect society.

Nope. If it keeps up long enough, robbers will be afraid to commit robbery , because it will be too dangerous. They will risk death, and any sane person who believes in justice shouldn't have a problem with that. If you do, I can only believe one is advocating, and encouraging robbery.

In America, individual rights are the order of the day. Those far outweigh any socialist programs or agenda for the imaginary "common" good.

I don't have to justify why I have, need, or want a firearm. You need to justify why I, me, my individual person, cannot have a firearm. And that is not something you can do. What someone else does with a gun is in no way my responsibility, nor can it dimminish my right. If someone commits a crime with a gun, throw him in a cage. Problem solved.

Only a coward would want fewer good guys with guns on the streets in today's world. Only a fool would support -- much less design -- such a policy of helplessness....To be against law-abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns is literally encouraging and assisting evil to have the upper hand.

The grown-ups are trying to talk, Dick. Go away.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Ralph

I think I mentioned something about a KEYPAD safe. You open it by pushing a memorized pattern of buttons.........mine's never been stolen. Perhaps you can find some statistics on how many guns are stolen from keypad safes...........

You did mention keypad safes, but you didn't mention the fact that people will put off buying them for their guns because it isn't seen as urgent.

Now, if you had stricter licensing requirements, you could have a system where people who didn't have a secure safe (eg, keypad) BEFORE buying a gun aren't allowed to own one, this would go quite some way towards solving the problem.

Oh... Didn't believe me about gun nuts, did you? Take a look at Dick's post above.

KingRat

27th November 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.%20Louis%20City%20/%20County/E7BF159BE8A9090A86256DE4001D3671?OpenDocument&Headline=Man,%207

Allowed to get his wallet, the homeowner retrieved his pistol instead and shot the intruder to death, county police said Wednesday after sorting out details of the previous evening's incident

not-so-famous last words...

"That doesn't look like a wallet to me."

Richard G

27th November 2003, 05:16 PM

not-so-famous last words...
:D

The Fool

27th November 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

...God given right that pre-dates the Constitution.

yeeeha! God thinks Richard should have a gun. Or to be more precise, Richard thinks god thinks richard should have a gun.

Why doesn't your god protect you without requiring you to pack a gun richard? Does he think you may be jumped when he is not looking?

Shaun from Scotland

27th November 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
I've got nothing against swords. The reason the old woman is forced to use one, is because the goverment stole hew guns.

When exactly did this woman have a firearms certificate? or was in a gun club? Or was granted a certificate and was the first person issued with a certificate for self defence for the first time since the 1920's?

Incidentally, when gun owners were required to surrender there weapons they were paid substantial compensation. This is by no definition stealing. Except in your paranoid fantasy world of course.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 06:37 PM

You are a subject, not a citizen, of your goverment, which thinks you are too stupid to be trusted with an effective means of self defense, and yet the goverment employs that same impliment.

Do what your goverment tells you to do, and be happy.

I am a free citizen, equal with every member, officer, and representative of my goverment. There is no right, or freedom excercised by my goverment representatives which I do not also enjoy, and freely excercise. That is equality, that is liberty, and freedom. Constitutional rights here are not negotiable. Your people seem to be satisfied to give up freedom for "substantial compensation". Totaly unnacceptable.

That idea, and the execution of it for over 200 years may be alien to you, and hard to grasp. But then you are not American.

There is no reason why that old women should be denied a firearm.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

Liberty is a harsh mistress. You cannot pick and choose what you like and dislike about her. Liberty will not change her principles for you, no matter how much you claim to love her. She will stand fast in her demands for total acceptance. If you can't receive her, she will recognize you as a false lover and leave you. And when you hear that door slam, it will take every tear in your eye, every ounce of blood in your veins, and all the nerve in your heart to win her back.

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Graham
- shrug - pretty much, why?

If the argument is that one should carry a gun in case one is ever attacked with a gun, why not wear a HazMat suit in case one is ever attacked with a chemical weapon?

Is it just a question of the odds?

I think it should be obvious to anyone willing to put in a modicum of thought that a Haz-Mat suit is a much greater inconvenience than a gun. Guns don't take up much room; you can easily carry them on your person or keep them in your car or wherever, and you can pretty much have a gun without causing a major upheaval in your life. Not so with a Haz-Mat suit. And if you need someone to explain to you why, you're beyond all hope.

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Graham
A fire extinguisher costs upwards of €40.

Fire insurance costs, let's say, €200 a year.

Other than the expense, there is no downside to owning either of these items.

There is a downside to owning a firearm (as well as a financial cost - purchase price, training, maintenence?, licences?)

Of course, I was specifically responding to Thanz's claim about the probability of an assault happening. Amazing how you people love changing the subject once a claim is soundly refuted...

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Never mind, I think I have found it - Defensive Gun Use.

Yes, that's it. Sorry for not explaining the acronym.

I do not understand why you are using stats that show instances per minute - why does that make a difference?

Because it shows how often something happens, and therefore, how likely it is. Which goes right to your claim.

Wouldn't numbers per population or household make more sense than per minute?

No; that just shows numbers normalized to population levels which makes it more convenient to compare growth. We're not worried about growth here; we're comparing probabilities.

Anyway, I do not agree with your statement for a number of reasons. First of all, I live in Toronto and so far this year we have had a total of 58 homocides, 26 of which were caused by guns. In a city of over 2.5 million people. I think you would be hard pressed to find any similarly sized American city with rates like these.

Irrelevant. We were talking about defensive gun uses.

Second, I have the smallest house in a very good neighbourhood on a busy street, and I have an alarm system. The risk/reward ratio for any potential criminal is simply too high for them to bother attempting to break in.

Again irrelevant, since such attacks can happen anywhere.

Third, my life revolves around my family and work. I do not find myself out late at night, or in shadier neighbourhoods, or in other situations that may be more condusive to violence.

Sounds like a false sense of security to me. "It just can't happen to me..."

So, in short, your stats do not sway me one bit.

I figured not; but it has more to do with your own pigheadedness than with anything reasonable.

But go ahead, after all, everyone else is in your exact position. Sure, we all are, so what's good for you should apply to all of us. Riiight....

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
No. I don't agree with the statement because -and I know this might come as a shock to you- FIRE EXTINGUISHERS DON'T KILL PEOPLE!

Actually, they can and have. That's one thing you learn in fire training. DO NOT turn a fire extinguisher on someone at close range.

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I beg your pardon? I did answer your question. You want to know what I'd say to hostages 'saved' by guns- I say that it doesn't balance the number of deaths by guns.

I'd really like to see you explain to such a hostage why that means they should have died.

And, of course, we know that each and every hostage situation is identical...Right???

So, if I had to speak to him? I'd call him 'idiot', and nothing more. Safety instructors always tell you: give the robbers what they want- the things they want aren't worth your life.

Oh, yes, that worked so well on 9/11...

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
That's good. But how will a locked up gun help you if there is an intruder in your home? Do you think that you will be able to quickly get your gun in the event that you need it?

Depends on how it's locked up and where, duh.

And I also believe that the danger of an accessible gun outweighs the risks of a home invasion, particularly when there are other non-life threatening measures against intruders.

Any evidence of this?

shanek

27th November 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
The grown-ups are trying to talk, Dick. Go away.

Thank you for demonstrating quite clearly that no one should take you at all seriously.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I think it should be obvious to anyone willing to put in a modicum of thought that a Haz-Mat suit is a much greater inconvenience than a gun. Guns don't take up much room; you can easily carry them on your person or keep them in your car or wherever, and you can pretty much have a gun without causing a major upheaval in your life. Not so with a Haz-Mat suit. And if you need someone to explain to you why, you're beyond all hope.

Yes, the gun only carries the potential to create upheaval in other people's lives. The fact is you are agreeing with our arguments, but for some reason you can't grasp the finer point, that a gun has costs beyond the actual money out of the owner's pockets w/r/t purchase and maintainance. These costs include statisitical increase in the likelyhood of injury to innocent people. In this way the gun presents much greater costs than does the Haz-Mat suit.

Is it that you ignore costs that fall on other people? Is that the problem? How very libertarian of you.

(You should feel honored I used my magical 1000th post on you)

WildCat

27th November 2003, 07:48 PM

You know, one thing I've noticed about all the gun threads on this board is how many non-US residents get worked up over an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Hmmm...you just said this was a strawman, now here you are saying the exact same thing! If anything, a gun is more efficient than insurance since its purchase, upkeep, and even firearm training is not as great as insurance and has just as much of a capacity to save your life. Only by ignoring that can you say a gun "serves no such purpose." And people bring violence to a situation, not guns. The gun just gives you a means of defending yourself against the violence of others.

Read what I said again. The main purpose of insurance is to decrease financial variance. Explain how a gun reduces variance with regard to violence in a situation. It is a totally different instument, in that it aims to prevent negative results, and not to reimburse. This should be an obvious concept, but I guess rhetorical posturing means more to you than the exchange of ideas. That's cool. Everyone needs a hobby. Read what you wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life. Makes no sense. My point was that comparing insurance to guns is like comparing apples to oranges, and you seem to be responding to that by claiming that oranges are superior to apples and that I'm an idiot for not seeing that. Maybe the caffiene in the chocolate is making you a bit jumpy...

The strawman was that anti gun people argue that weapons never can be used for self defense. I'm really actually curious as to how the above is remotely similar to that statement, given that my statement isn't even talking about defense, rather the concept of variance.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
You know, one thing I've noticed about all the gun threads on this board is how many non-US residents get worked up over an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

Part of that is Richard G's threads where he over and over claimed more or less that Brits and such must not like freedom or their children very much since they have gun control. Some of our overseas friends are a bit hostile towards him due to that.

shanek

27th November 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yes, the gun only carries the potential to create upheaval in other people's lives.

This just isn't a supported assertion no matter how many times you state it. The gun has no such potential whatsoever. It depends on who is carrying it. If I am a normal, everyday, law-abiding, well-adjusted individual, there is no real chance of any such upheaval taking place.

The Fool

27th November 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
You know, one thing I've noticed about all the gun threads on this board is how many non-US residents get worked up over an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

Then maybe you could have a chat to your fellow americans that constantly want to tell me about how bad my situation is because of the gun laws in my country.

Actually I have also noticed Americans getting worked up about other, non gun, issues in Europe and asia....maybe they should keep out of those too?

shanek

27th November 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Read what I said again. The main purpose of insurance is to decrease financial variance. Explain how a gun reduces variance with regard to violence in a situation. It is a totally different instument, in that it aims to prevent negative results, and not to reimburse.

How does that in any way refute what I said? Are you really saying it's better to just mop up a mess afterward than to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Read what you wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life.

That was a direct and effective refutation of one of Thanz's claims. And again, here you are trying to take it out of context and make it look like something other than it was intended to be.

Thanz said that taking such an action when there was such a small chance of it taking place is paranoid. I pointed out that, by his argument, getting fire insurance or a fire extinguisher (a preventative/defensive measure, just like a gun—interesting how you ignored that bit) is even more paranoid.

BTox

27th November 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Then maybe you could have a chat to your fellow americans that constantly want to tell me about how bad my situation is because of the gun laws in my country.

What do they say about your country?

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

This just isn't a supported assertion no matter how many times you state it. The gun has no such potential whatsoever. It depends on who is carrying it. If I am a normal, everyday, law-abiding, well-adjusted individual, there is no real chance of any such upheaval taking place.

You are getting closer to understanding my point. Once you do that you may refute it with a little more success.

I am talking about broad policy assertions. Statistics. There are situations where a gun will come in handy. There are people for whom having a gun will cause little or no danger to others. However, there are situations and people that are the converse.

My contention is that if it is shown that present gun policy causes more of the latter than the former, and if there are measures available to better adjust the ratio towards the positive, then those measures are justified.

Saying that there are people that know what they are doing is largely irrelevent. It is understood. The question is the ratio of those persons to those that do not.

Fixating on only the positive does nothing, unless you are contending that guns never lead to a negative outcome. Once you accept that such outcomes occur, it becomes a question largely of statistics. Or do you think it should be perfectly legal for everyone, regardless of mental fitness or knowlege of the dangers of poor gun safety techniques, to own such lethal machinary? If your answer to that is no, then explain how it is that we aren't saying the same thing in different words, and the only real difference may be where that line is drawn?

The Fool

27th November 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by BTox

What do they say about your country?

Mainly tales of rampant violent crime because the general population does not carry guns. Its one of richards favourite topics whenever measures to address gun deaths are implemented in other countries, he will weigh in claiming the crime rate has gone through the roof due to the gun controls.... He's not alone in that respect, there are a lot of "more people armed with more guns makes the place safer" on this forum.....

BTox

27th November 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Mainly tales of rampant violent crime because the general population does not carry guns. Its one of richards favourite topics whenever measures to address gun deaths are implemented in other countries, he will weigh in claiming the crime rate has gone through the roof due to the gun controls.... He's not alone in that respect, there are a lot of "more people armed with more guns makes the place safer" on this forum.....

Really? I always thought Australia was a pretty safe place. Is violent crime increasing?

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by shanek

How does that in any way refute what I said? Are you really saying it's better to just mop up a mess afterward than to prevent it from happening in the first place? No, I'm saying that insurance and guns are different things. One seeks to reimburse for a negative event, the other (when used properly) seeks to prevent the negative event.

In other words, if some one looks to knock your teeth out, insurance will pay for the dentist, while a gun tries to prevent the harm.

Again, why can you not understand I am saying these are apples and oranges, that they perform different functions so to compare them is just silly. You now seem to imply I am saying one is better than the other. Amazing. Do you not understand what I mean by "variance," that insurance is a sacrifice of theoretical wealth in order to avoid a wild negative swing? Guns are a wholly different animal.

That was a direct and effective refutation of one of Thanz's claims. And again, here you are trying to take it out of context and make it look like something other than it was intended to be. It was a response to my post, so I took it as such. You made no mention of Thanz in that post. Perhaps you should be more precise in your responses.

Thanz said that taking such an action when there was such a small chance of it taking place is paranoid. I pointed out that, by his argument, getting fire insurance or a fire extinguisher (a preventative/defensive measure, just like a gun—interesting how you ignored that bit) is even more paranoid.
That wasn't my post. Keeping track of what you address to me is as far as I usually go.

However, I can address it rather quickly. You ignore the actual cost of the preventive measure. Are you suggesting that accidental deaths and injuries from fire extinguishers approach those of guns?

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

My contention is that if it is shown that present gun policy causes more of the latter than the former, and if there are measures available to better adjust the ratio towards the positive, then those measures are justified.

Saying that there are people that know what they are doing is largely irrelevent.

The mere fact that you say this shows that you don't have any understanding or appreciation for freedom.

If you did, you would know that you CANNOT take away my freedom because of the actions of someone else, you CANNOT take away my freedom because of how many or even most other people would behave, and you CANNOT take away my freedom because of what you think I may do in the future. If you do, then we just don't have anything called "freedom" anymore.

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
No, I'm saying that insurance and guns are different things. One seeks to reimburse for a negative event, the other (when used properly) seeks to prevent the negative event.

In other words, if some one looks to knock your teeth out, insurance will pay for the dentist, while a gun tries to prevent the harm.

Again, why can you not understand I am saying these are apples and oranges, that they perform different functions so to compare them is just silly.

You have done absolutely nothing to show how my refutation of Thanz's claim is invalid. This whole "apples and oranges" thing is just a distraction since I never made such a comparison in the first place. We were talking simply about taking actions based on an unlikely event; and for those purposes, as I showed, they are quote comparable.

You just don't have any leg to stand on here. You're trying to make my comments out to be something more than they are, even after I have already clarified them to you.

It was a response to my post, so I took it as such. You made no mention of Thanz in that post. Perhaps you should be more precise in your responses.
That wasn't my post. Keeping track of what you address to me is as far as I usually go.

Here's a full quote of the post where I made the comparison:

Originally posted by Thanz
The chances of anyone pointing a .357 in my face are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a firearm. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, there is a home fire 1.3 minutes in the US. Even if you go by the lower numbers of DGUs presented by the gun control advocates in rebuttal of the Lott/Kleck figures, that's still one DGU every 1.05 minutes in the US. So you are more likely to find yourself in a position where a firearm will be an effective tool for protection than you are to have a fire in your home.

So, would you agree with the following statement?

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

Now, show me where this has anything to do with you, and how it any way relates to what you're trying to refute.

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The mere fact that you say this shows that you don't have any understanding or appreciation for freedom.

If you did, you would know that you CANNOT take away my freedom because of the actions of someone else, you CANNOT take away my freedom because of how many or even most other people would behave, and you CANNOT take away my freedom because of what you think I may do in the future. If you do, then we just don't have anything called "freedom" anymore.

And empty platitudes CANNOT be substituted for reasoned argument, as some people CANNOT see the distinction between the concept of reasonable regulation as all rights CANNOT be absolute as to do so is impossible, as some RIGHTS when extended infringe on others. However, some people either WILLNOT or CANNOT accept this simple fact so they fall back on some tired declaration that others CANNOT infringe on their rights, even though I HOPE they ARENOT really serious because that argument DOESNOT have any substance. I guess they DO that because they HAVENOT any other means TO rEspONd.

Does my use of caps make this any clearer? If not, then what makes you think it would work on me?

Suddenly

27th November 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You have done absolutely nothing to show how my refutation of Thanz's claim is invalid. This whole "apples and oranges" thing is just a distraction since I never made such a comparison in the first place. We were talking simply about taking actions based on an unlikely event; and for those purposes, as I showed, they are quote comparable. I am not talking about Thanz's claim. I'm not real sure what it is. I made the claim of apples and oranges (not in those very words) in response to a Richard G comment. It is not a distraction. It is my contention that comparing the two is meaningless as they seek to accomplish comepletely different and non-exclusive goals, period. If you want to argue with Thanz, try responding to his posts. Silly me, when you responded to my post, I thought you were responding to my points, not Thanz's. What was I thinking?

You just don't have any leg to stand on here. You're trying to make my comments out to be something more than they are, even after I have already clarified them to you. No, you are assuming I am making points anywhere near Thanz's. Maybe I am. I don't know. You are superimposing context onto my comments that I may not be fully aware of.

Here's a full quote of the post where I made the comparison:

According to the National Fire Protection Association, there is a home fire 1.3 minutes in the US. Even if you go by the lower numbers of DGUs presented by the gun control advocates in rebuttal of the Lott/Kleck figures, that's still one DGU every 1.05 minutes in the US. So you are more likely to find yourself in a position where a firearm will be an effective tool for protection than you are to have a fire in your home.

So, would you agree with the following statement?

The chances of me having a home fire are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a fire extingusher or fire insurance. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

Now, show me where this has anything to do with you, and how it any way relates to what you're trying to refute.

I disagree with the statement.

Again, this analysis completely ignores the cost variable. I would contend the rate of accidental injuries and deaths by misuse of guns versus misuse of fire extinguishers and fire insurance is a relevent variable to any analysis.

One consideration is the benefit rate. Your data speaks somewhat to that. However, there is a question of cost, not only in out of pocket expense by the gun (or extinguisher or even insurance) owner, but also the costs to others, such as those injured by the misuse of the guns. Your data ignores this factor.

I would support measures that would lessen the cost. This does not require the banning of guns, just regulation to lessen cost. Do you even disagree with that, or would you allow any idiot regardless of lack of basic gun safety concepts to own a AK-47?

Like I said, my above insurance point likely had little to do with Thanz's point. I was saying that they are so different as to compare them is just silly. While in an extreme case a fire extinguisher might kill someone by accident, such an event is impossible for an insurance policy. Heck, even a severe paper cut really doesn't count, as such an injury is caused by the paper the policy is printed on. The policy itself is intangible. They are in different realms. A fire extinguisher makes a much better comparison.

shanek

27th November 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
And empty platitudes CANNOT be substituted for reasoned argument, as some people CANNOT see the distinction between the concept of reasonable regulation as all rights CANNOT be absolute as to do so is impossible, as some RIGHTS when extended infringe on others. However, some people either WILLNOT or CANNOT accept this simple fact so they fall back on some tired declaration that others CANNOT infringe on their rights, even though I HOPE they ARENOT really serious because that argument DOESNOT have any substance. I guess they DO that because they HAVENOT any other means TO rEspONd.

Does my use of caps make this any clearer? If not, then what makes you think it would work on me?

Your complete and willful refusal to even want to understand what I'm talking about and instead resort to cheap flames has been noted.

shanek

27th November 2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I am not talking about Thanz's claim. I'm not real sure what it is. I made the claim of apples and oranges (not in those very words) in response to a Richard G comment. It is not a distraction.

I am not talking about anything you may or may not have said to Richard G. You made this response to one of MY posts:

Read what you wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life. Makes no sense. My point was that comparing insurance to guns is like comparing apples to oranges, and you seem to be responding to that by claiming that oranges are superior to apples and that I'm an idiot for not seeing that. Maybe the caffiene in the chocolate is making you a bit jumpy...

"What YOU wrote"...which, since you were responding to a post of mine, means what I wrote, not what Richard G. wrote. The comparison I made was in the post of mine that I quoted to you in full. I am refuting your stylization of my comparison.

It is my contention that comparing the two is meaningless as they seek to accomplish comepletely different and non-exclusive goals, period.

Again, that is irrelevant to the point I was making. We were talking about taking action to prepare for an unlikely eventuality. That is the thing that you were referring to when you said, "Read what you (meaning me) wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life." That IS what I wrote.

If you want to argue with Thanz, try responding to his posts. Silly me, when you responded to my post, I thought you were responding to my points, not Thanz's.

I was. I was responding to what you said about what I, not Richard G, had written about firearms vs. insurance. YOU made the response to ME. So grow the f*ck up, take some personal responsibility, and either back up your assertion about my post or retract it.

No, you are assuming I am making points anywhere near Thanz's.

I'm not assuming anything. That's what you SAID. "Read what you (meaning me) wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life."

Again, this analysis completely ignores the cost variable.

As Thanz's claim had nothing to do with the cost variable, I didn't feel I had any obligation to incorporate it into my rebuttal.

I would contend the rate of accidental injuries and deaths by misuse of guns versus misuse of fire extinguishers and fire insurance is a relevent variable to any analysis.

Fine; but that wasn't what Thanz was talking about, so it wasn't what I was talking about in my reply to him.

One consideration is the benefit rate. Your data speaks somewhat to that. However, there is a question of cost, not only in out of pocket expense by the gun (or extinguisher or even insurance) owner, but also the costs to others, such as those injured by the misuse of the guns. Your data ignores this factor.

I have ignored nothing. I have always said that gun owners are responsible for those injured through their misuse or neglect, just as car owners are with their cars, for example. I do resoundly reject that people who have caused no injury at all to others should be in any way restricted or limited. That has to do with that whole "freedom" thing again. But go ahead and ignore it again and flame me instead if it makes you feel better.

What if I were to say that, since most crimes are committed by black people after 10:00 (just a hypothetical; I'm not at all saying this is true) then we should place a curfew on all blacks forbidding them to be outside their homes after 10:00. Would you consider that to be a reasonable limitation, or an egregious taking of their rights?

I would support measures that would lessen the cost. This does not require the banning of guns, just regulation to lessen cost.

But the costs would increase to the gun owners who aren't a problem. So, once again, you're willing to sacrifice the rights of the ones who aren't the problem.

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, yes, that worked so well on 9/11...

:roll: :roll: :roll:

:wipes a tear from his eye:

Oh... My... That was priceless. Do you honestly think that guns would have prevented 9/11? You really need to think a little before you post. No, on second thought, don't. I can always use the laughs.

Richard G

27th November 2003, 11:05 PM

Do you honestly think that guns would have prevented 9/11?

Absolutely. If law abiding Americans who already have concealed carry permits were allowed to excercise their rights aboard a plane, instead of having them stripped at the airport gate like a criminal, 9/11 would have been prevented.

Post 9/11, the goverments big answer to this problem, after stripping you naked before boarding, is to put an ARMED air marshall on every plane, and arm the pilots. Thats pretty darned ingenious of them. They must think it will work, and they are right. They could save alot of money by allowing the militia do it for them.

You see, when liberty suffers, so does security, and vice versa.
http://www.empirearms.com/cartoon_terrorists.jpg

Mr Manifesto

27th November 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Absolutely. If law abiding Americans who already have concealed carry permits were allowed to excercise their rights aboard a plane, instead of having them stripped at the airport gate like a criminal, 9/11 would have been prevented.

Post 9/11, the goverments big answer to this problem, after stripping you naked before boarding, is to put an ARMED air marshall on every plane, and arm the pilots. Thats pretty darned ingenious of them. They must think it will work, and they are right. They could save alot of money by allowing the militia do it for them.

You see, when liberty suffers, so does security, and vice versa.
http://www.empirearms.com/cartoon_terrorists.jpg

Air marshalls are not the same as every citizen. I don't have a problem with law enforcement officers carrying weapons.

As to your cartoon- :roll: Can you tell me what's wrong with that picture, Dick? I want to see how smart you are. I'm guessing the answer is, not very.

The Fool

27th November 2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Richard G

Absolutely. If law abiding Americans who already have concealed carry permits were allowed to excercise their rights aboard a plane, instead of having them stripped at the airport gate like a criminal, 9/11 would have been prevented.

Post 9/11, the goverments big answer to this problem, after stripping you naked before boarding, is to put an ARMED air marshall on every plane, and arm the pilots. Thats pretty darned ingenious of them. They must think it will work, and they are right. They could save alot of money by allowing the militia do it for them.

You see, when liberty suffers, so does security, and vice versa.

You may as well ask the militia to fly the plane...Have you asked airline pilots if they would be willing to fly a plane with armed passengers on board?

The militia? yea whatever......

The Don

28th November 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
You know, one thing I've noticed about all the gun threads on this board is how many non-US residents get worked up over an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

'kay, I won't post about anythnig which doesn't directly affect me - except that I go to the states most years and half my family's there - so long as you restrict your posts to strictly feline issues

The Don

28th November 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

As to your cartoon- Can you tell me what's wrong with that picture, Dick? I want to see how smart you are. I'm guessing the answer is, not very.

Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ?

pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir Can I have a go ?

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by The Don

Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ? Can I have a go ?

pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir pleasesir Can I have a go ?

You answer questions lots of times. Give Richard a turn first, and I'll ask you next. Maybe you'll get a smiley sticker.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
You know, one thing I've noticed about all the gun threads on this board is how many non-US residents get worked up over an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

What's good for the goose (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29902)
is good for the gander (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28877).

Zep

28th November 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

Zep--do you really believe that I live in a neighbohood where everybody is just sitting around with a gun in hand waiting for an excuse to shoot someone?

Gee, you sure made it SOUND like that! Shall I quote you your own words back, or just let you read them again to yourself...

If you have your cricket bat.... and I have a 9mm Sig........it wouldn't go 3 rounds....................

That wasn't the situation described in the original story at the top of this thread, matey. Care to read it again? And let me just say that if you didn't hear or see me walking up behind you with Mr Cricket Bat then your 9mm Sig or your .357 Magnum or your M16 for that matter would be pretty useless - you wouldn't have a brain left to think with, let alone turn, aim and pull the trigger.

Mr Manifesto thought the guy was an idiot for taking down the intruder with a gun............I'm having a hard time convincing myself that If someones got a knife to my wifes throat that I'm better off with a cricket bat in my hand.

No, you're having a hard time seeing past using a gun as the only viable solution. It isn't. In fact, it's not even the best solution in this case because it is definitely putting your wife at risk too. What about: Calling the police, talking the guy out of it, scaring him off, threatening him with a battering (as we discussed above), actually giving him a battering, etc, etc.

Can you please explain to me why there is this fervent desire to turn to firearms as the immediate and sole solution to these situations?

Shaun from Scotland

28th November 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
You are a subject, not a citizen, of your goverment, which thinks you are too stupid to be trusted with an effective means of self defense, and yet the goverment employs that same impliment.

Do what your goverment tells you to do, and be happy.

I am a free citizen, equal with every member, officer, and representative of my goverment. There is no right, or freedom excercised by my goverment representatives which I do not also enjoy, and freely excercise. That is equality, that is liberty, and freedom. Constitutional rights here are not negotiable. Your people seem to be satisfied to give up freedom for "substantial compensation". Totaly unnacceptable.

That idea, and the execution of it for over 200 years may be alien to you, and hard to grasp. But then you are not American.

There is no reason why that old women should be denied a firearm.

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

Liberty is a harsh mistress. You cannot pick and choose what you like and dislike about her. Liberty will not change her principles for you, no matter how much you claim to love her. She will stand fast in her demands for total acceptance. If you can't receive her, she will recognize you as a false lover and leave you. And when you hear that door slam, it will take every tear in your eye, every ounce of blood in your veins, and all the nerve in your heart to win her back.

I guess I have underestimated just how big those cornfields really are.

There are so many things wrong in this post I cant even be bothered to point them out. Go away you tiresome, pig ignorant fool. Although maybe I shouldn't say that, you are such a big man with your gun..

Graham

28th November 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Of course, I was specifically responding to Thanz's claim about the probability of an assault happening. Amazing how you people love changing the subject once a claim is soundly refuted...

"you people" :rolleyes:

Sorry I spoke, Shanek. I won't do it again, Shanek.

BillyTK

28th November 2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
I've got nothing against swords. The reason the old woman is forced to use one, is because the goverment stole hew guns.
Evidence please. I'm sure if that was the case, it would have made big headlines: Government steals guns from pensioner, aged 80 or something.

shanek

28th November 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Oh... My... That was priceless. Do you honestly think that guns would have prevented 9/11?

More pathetic changing of the subject. I was responding to your now-widely-debunked claim that the best thing to do is give an assailant what he wants.

shanek

28th November 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Air marshalls are not the same as every citizen.

EVERY CITIZEN could carry a gun on a plane up to 1968, and there wasn't a complete ban on them until 1973. Perhaps you can point out all of the instances of passenger misuse of guns before then?

shanek

28th November 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Graham
"you people" :rolleyes:

Sorry I spoke, Shanek. I won't do it again, Shanek.

Oh, spare me! You know full well that my problem wasn't that you "spoke," but that you misrepresented what my post was about. Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself.

Thanz

28th November 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Because it shows how often something happens, and therefore, how likely it is. Which goes right to your claim.
The underlying assumption, however, is that the probability of something happening is evenly spread across the population, which I completely disagree with. For example, why should I care if a car is stolen every 24.6 seconds (completely made up number) if I drive a ten year old beater of a car? Similarly, fires per minute don't interest me - what would be more interesting would be what percentage of households experience a fire.

No; that just shows numbers normalized to population levels which makes it more convenient to compare growth. We're not worried about growth here; we're comparing probabilities.
I disagree. If you want a direct comparison, I think it makes more sense to compare how many households experience a break in (while people are at home) to how many households experience a fire. That would be a better indicator of the need for fire insurance and fire extinguishers to a gun for home safety.

Irrelevant. We were talking about defensive gun uses.
Not irrelevant. The safety of my home city is relevant to whether I will need a gun for home safety, and the murder/gun murder rates are one indicator of safety.

Again irrelevant, since such attacks can happen anywhere.
Sure, they CAN happen anywhere - but to ignore the different probabilities of it actually happening in a particular place would be ridiculous. Given my personal situation, the odds of it happening to me are much lower than for other people. Nothing about my house makes it a target, and many things about my house make it NOT a target. How is that irrelevant?

Sounds like a false sense of security to me. "It just can't happen to me..."
No, it is actually a very real sense of security. To believe otherwise would be a false sense of danger, or paranoia.

I figured not; but it has more to do with your own pigheadedness than with anything reasonable.
You think that it is unreasonable for me to take my own personal situation into account when determining the odds of me needing a gun?

But go ahead, after all, everyone else is in your exact position. Sure, we all are, so what's good for you should apply to all of us. Riiight....
I am sure that many are not in my position. But I am equally sure that if Richard G were in my position, he would still be armed to the teeth and convinced that he needed to be for his own protection, which I find ridiculous. Further, I think that the cultural balance in the USA is towards gun ownership, even in circumstances such as my own.

Now, you asked me if I agreed with your statement regarding fire insurance, and I told you why I did not.

I would also like to point out that in a reply to Suddenly, you state the following:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this analysis completely ignores the cost variable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Thanz's claim had nothing to do with the cost variable, I didn't feel I had any obligation to incorporate it into my rebuttal.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would contend the rate of accidental injuries and deaths by misuse of guns versus misuse of fire extinguishers and fire insurance is a relevent variable to any analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine; but that wasn't what Thanz was talking about, so it wasn't that I was talking about in my reply to him.
In my response to you I stated the following, which you ignored:However, I do cook. And I do have a fireplace. And I love candles. The costs of fire insurance and a fire extinguisher are not that great. The potential for an accident with fire insurance or a fire extinguisher are nil, and even if a fire extinguisher fell on my toe - the most I'd get is a bruised or broken toe. With a firearm and children in the house, there is a greater potential for an accident. And even if the odds of that happening are very very small, the potential downside of such an accident could be devastating.
For you to now say that I wasn't discussing the costs of gun ownership is galling, considering that I put it in my reply to your queries, and you ignored it completely.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by shanek

More pathetic changing of the subject. I was responding to your now-widely-debunked claim that the best thing to do is give an assailant what he wants.

My mistake. As you can see from Dick's post, there really are people out there who think guns would have changed the outcome.

QUESTION: What's the difference between a burglar and a fanatical Muslim hijacker?

Take your time answering. I eagerly await your next apples and oranges argument.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by shanek

EVERY CITIZEN could carry a gun on a plane up to 1968, and there wasn't a complete ban on them until 1973. Perhaps you can point out all of the instances of passenger misuse of guns before then?

:leaning forward, ears pricked:

So -let me get this straight- are you saying Joe Citizen should be allowed to carry guns on planes?

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
The underlying assumption, however, is that the probability of something happening is evenly spread across the population, which I completely disagree with.

You did not make this distinction in your claim; why should I have made it in my rebuttal?

I disagree. If you want a direct comparison, I think it makes more sense to compare how many households experience a break in (while people are at home) to how many households experience a fire. That would be a better indicator of the need for fire insurance and fire extinguishers to a gun for home safety.

Since that isn't even close to the comparison I was making, I really have to wonder what you're trying to pull here.

Not irrelevant. The safety of my home city is relevant to whether I will need a gun for home safety, and the murder/gun murder rates are one indicator of safety.

You didn't say anything about "home" safety in your original claim. You were talking about general personal defense. Stop moving the goalposts.

Sure, they CAN happen anywhere - but to ignore the different probabilities of it actually happening in a particular place would be ridiculous. Given my personal situation, the odds of it happening to me are much lower than for other people. Nothing about my house makes it a target, and many things about my house make it NOT a target. How is that irrelevant?

Because you have done nothing to show that your particular situation is in any way representative of the general population.

No, it is actually a very real sense of security. To believe otherwise would be a false sense of danger, or paranoia.

Oh? How many victims of home burglaries do you think had previously said, "It can't happen to me"?

You think that it is unreasonable for me to take my own personal situation into account when determining the odds of me needing a gun?

I think it's unreasonable for you to assume that your situation applies to everyone else, and call them "paranoid" when they decide that a gun would be useful for personal defense.

I am sure that many are not in my position. But I am equally sure that if Richard G were in my position, he would still be armed to the teeth and convinced that he needed to be for his own protection, which I find ridiculous.

I am not interested in your unfounded assumptions of what Richard G would or would not do.

Now, you asked me if I agreed with your statement regarding fire insurance, and I told you why I did not.

In my response to you I stated the following, which you ignored:

I didn't ignore it, you liar! I pointed out how you can't take YOUR OWN PERSONAL SITUATION and apply it to everyone else! Suppose I don't cook, and I don't burn candles, etc. Am I then paranoid for having a fire extinguisher and fire insurance? You didn't answer that.

For you to now say that I wasn't discussing the costs of gun ownership is galling,

I never said that! Stop lying, and start supporting your own statements instad of backpedalling and moving the goalposts.

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
My mistake.

Okay. Then answer the question.

Take your time answering. I eagerly await your next apples and oranges argument.

:rolleyes:

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
:leaning forward, ears pricked:

So -let me get this straight- are you saying Joe Citizen should be allowed to carry guns on planes?

I'm asking a question. Why don't you answer it?

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Okay. Then answer the question.

Don't be dense. You know I'm answering the question with a question. Specifically, I'm saying there is a big difference between fanatical Muslim hijackers (against which there is no known defence, including everyone carrying guns) and burglars (who, much more often than not, don't want an open confrontation and will go away once they have what they want).

You like your apples and oranges arguments, though, as I've said. Otherwise you wouldn't compare 9/11 hijackers to burglars.

Richard G

28th November 2003, 09:39 AM

So -let me get this straight- are you saying Joe Citizen should be allowed to carry guns on planes?

Yes. Anyone with a concealed carry liscense should. It sounds as though you look down your nose at your fellow "joe citizen". Most elitists do.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I'm asking a question. Why don't you answer it?

Now answer my question. I'm very interested to know why you want me to dredge up passenger gun statistics from the 1970's and earlier.

Ralph

28th November 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Don't be dense. You know I'm answering the question with a question. Specifically, I'm saying there is a big difference between fanatical Muslim hijackers (against which there is no known defence, including everyone carrying guns) and burglars (who, much more often than not, don't want an open confrontation and will go away once they have what they want).

You like your apples and oranges arguments, though, as I've said. Otherwise you wouldn't compare 9/11 hijackers to burglars.

"No known defense"????????

Forget everyone else.......what if the pilots had been armed??

Richard G

28th November 2003, 09:44 AM

Specifically, I'm saying there is a big difference between fanatical Muslim hijackers (against which there is no known defence, including everyone carrying guns)

Are you whimsicaly insinuating that the fanatical Muslim is somehow impervious to ballistics? They are some super-human entity which are impervious to high velocity projectiles?

You do have a horribly skewed sense of reality don't you?
(there are a mountain of fanatical Muslim corpses in Afghanistan and Baghdad to refute your non-sense.)

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Ralph

"No known defense"????????

Forget everyone else.......what if the pilots had been armed??

Take a look at what I said earlier. I have no problem with some people carrying arms for the purposes of law enforcement. Just not every person on the plane.

Richard G

28th November 2003, 09:49 AM

"No known defense"????????

People who think like this are professional victims. They believe there is no known defense in any situation (give the bad guy what they want, maybe they will go away). Call the goverment for help, and hope they get their on time....thats their solution to everything.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Richard G

Are you whimsicaly insinuating that the fanatical Muslim is somehow impervious to ballistics? They are some super-human entity which are impervious to high velocity projectiles?

You do have a horribly skewed sense of reality don't you?
(there are a mountain of fanatical Muslim corpses in Afghanistan and Baghdad to refute your non-sense.)

Yes, and there are lots of dead Americans and dead American sympathisers in those countries, too. The point, which you and yours frequently miss, is that there are some groups of people who really don't keep body counts. They couldn't care less how many of their number fall. Or, as Pol Pot put it: "For every ten of us you kill, we will kill one of yours; in the end, it is you who will tire".

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:52 AM

Oh... Long as you're here, Dick... Have you spotted what's wrong with the picture yet?

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Don't be dense. You know I'm answering the question with a question.

No, you aren't. You're evading. Now answer the question.

Specifically, I'm saying there is a big difference between fanatical Muslim hijackers (against which there is no known defence, including everyone carrying guns) and burglars (who, much more often than not, don't want an open confrontation and will go away once they have what they want).

That doesn't have anything to do with your initial claim, though. More and more, people in the security field are realizing that the whole "just give them what they want" advice is really, really bad.

So you can continue to whine and blather on about apples and oranges, or you can actually address the refutation presented to you.

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Now answer my question. I'm very interested to know why you want me to dredge up passenger gun statistics from the 1970's and earlier.

Because I want you to support your assertion that passengers would mususe their guns of they were allowed to carry them on planes. Well, here's a whole time period where they were allowed to do exactly that. So support your assertion.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, you aren't. You're evading. Now answer the question.
The question's been answered. But you knew that. You say I'm evading, I say you're projecting.

That doesn't have anything to do with your initial claim, though. More and more, people in the security field are realizing that the whole "just give them what they want" advice is really, really bad.

So you can continue to whine and blather on about apples and oranges, or you can actually address the refutation presented to you.

Really. Tell me where these 'more and more' people are.

shanek

28th November 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Ralph
"No known defense"????????

Forget everyone else.......what if the pilots had been armed??

Simple:

[Pilots fly the plane, minding their own business. A terrorist bursts through, wielding a box-cutter.]

TERRORIST: In the name of Allah—

[Pilot shoots the terrorist.]

PILOT: [on microphone] We're sorry about that turbulence, ladies and gentlemen. But it looks like we're going to be landing early at LAX...

Richard G

28th November 2003, 09:57 AM

The point, which you and yours frequently miss, is that there are some groups of people who really don't keep body counts. They couldn't care less how many of their number fall.

Line em up, and let em fall. I have plenty of ammo, and high capacity magazines. I carry enough every day to shoot each one of those hi-jackers 10 times. I think that will take the "fanatic" out of even the most "fanatic" of Muslims.

Thanz

28th November 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by shanek

You did not make this distinction in your claim; why should I have made it in my rebuttal?
Here is what I originally said:

The chances of anyone pointing a .357 in my face are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a firearm. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.
Seems pretty specific to my situation, doesn't it? And my original response to you was pretty specific to my situation as well, wasn't it? The only sentence that could be of general application is the last one - and I do think that by constantly obsessing about guns (as Richard G seems to be doing) that he is living in fear.
Since that isn't even close to the comparison I was making, I really have to wonder what you're trying to pull here.
I am trying to make a comparison that makes some sort of logical sense. DGU's per minute is an irrelevant statistic. If you want to compare fire safety stuff to guns, you need to make the comparison fair. And DGU's are not a good measuring stick. IF you compare break ins to fires, you have a direct comparison of the times you need fire safety equip and a gun for personal safety.

You didn't say anything about "home" safety in your original claim. You were talking about general personal defense. Stop moving the goalposts.
My original claim is above. You are the one who compared it to fire insurance, so I am not moving the goalposts - I am trying to keep the comparison fair. Fire insurance affects the home only, so I am comparing it to gun needs at home as well.

Because you have done nothing to show that your particular situation is in any way representative of the general population.
It is not irrelevant to my answer to your question - which is how I can say what I said above and still disagree with your fire statement.

Oh? How many victims of home burglaries do you think had previously said, "It can't happen to me"?
Irrelevant fear mongering on your part. Don't you have a real argument?

I think it's unreasonable for you to assume that your situation applies to everyone else, and call them "paranoid" when they decide that a gun would be useful for personal defense.
Look above at what I said. I think that the average citizen who feels the need to strap on a gun everywhere they go IS certainly living in fear. By strapping on a gun everyday you are constantly thinking about needing it, and fearing being attacked. You cannot apply that same line of thinking to fire insurance.

I didn't ignore it, you liar!
Really? You snipped it out of my post and did not address it. Seems like ignoring it to me.
Suppose I don't cook, and I don't burn candles, etc. Am I then paranoid for having a fire extinguisher and fire insurance? You didn't answer that.
You didn't ask it.

I never said that! Stop lying, and start supporting your own statements instad of backpedalling and moving the goalposts.
Dude, you said that I wasn't discussing the relative costs of accidents between firearms and fire extinguishers. At the time you posted that, I most certainly had posted on that - and you ignored it. Save your indignation for someone else, and don't call me a liar when I directly quoted you saying that in my post.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 10:11 AM

Don't be a hero (http://www.brooklinepolice.com/safety/page2.html#robbery)

Don't resist or endanger your safety (http://www.snc.edu/security/tips.htm)

Give the person what they want (http://www.safetyandsecurity.bcit.ca/Security/PersonalSecurity/armed_robbery.pdf)

Take no action that would jeopardize the safety of you, your employees or customers (http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/help_us/robbery.cfm)

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Simple:

[Pilots fly the plane, minding their own business. A terrorist bursts through, wielding a box-cutter.]

TERRORIST: In the name of Allah—

[Pilot shoots the terrorist.]

PILOT: [on microphone] We're sorry about that turbulence, ladies and gentlemen. But it looks like we're going to be landing early at LAX...

Now, who was it that accused me of evading..?

As I've said... three times, I believe we're up to, now... the issue is not about air marshalls or pilots. It's about passengers carrying weapons. Dick seems to be all for it. You've yet to give your opinion on the subject. Why is that? And no, it's not a rhetorical question, I want to know why you're ducking, dodging, diving, weaving and doing all you can to avoid answering the question.

Richard G

28th November 2003, 10:37 AM

I would ask you why you are against passengers carrying on planes, but the answer is you don't want anyone carrying anywhere. Isn't that correct? (except for your goverment)

Keep your safety claptrap to yourself. I stay safe by eliminating the threat. You beg like a dog. It is a free country. (here it is anyway).

[from an article: Many robberies occur because the businesses make it convenient for the robber. ]

Shooting back makes it VERY inconveniant for the robber. Rolling over, doing everything they want....that makes it hugely conveniant, don't ya think. That only encourages more robbery.

Mr Manifesto

28th November 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
I would ask you why you are against passengers carrying on planes, but the answer is you don't want anyone carrying anywhere. Isn't that correct? (except for your goverment)

Keep your safety claptrap to yourself. I stay safe by eliminating the threat. You beg like a dog. It is a free country. (here it is anyway).

One last time, Dick: Have you seen what's wrong with the cartoon?

Suddenly

28th November 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Your complete and willful refusal to even want to understand what I'm talking about and instead resort to cheap flames has been noted.

"Been noted?"

Bwahahahaha!!

Your ability to dish it out but not take it has been noted. I wrote it down on a yellow pad right by the computer. "Shanek dishes it out but can't take it." Yep, that's exactly what I wrote.

shanek

28th November 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Here is what I originally said:

The chances of anyone pointing a .357 in my face are so astronomically low that they do not warrant me carrying or even owning a firearm. I will not live my life in fear of something that will likely never happen. By constantly obsessing about this, you are living in fear - whether you realize it or not.

Seems pretty specific to my situation, doesn't it?

Yes, but as I pointed out, you then go and extrapolate YOUR PERSONAL SITUATION to everyone else and say that they're living in fear, when their own personal situation may be quite different from yours. And if you can't see that that's what you've done, then I can only conclude that you're beyond hope.

So answer the question: Would someone in a situation where having a home fire was as or less likely than your likelihood of needing a gun for defense, would they be living in fear by getting a fire extinguisher or fire insurance?

If you want to compare fire safety stuff to guns, you need to make the comparison fair.

The comparison WAS fair. I know you don't want to admit that, but it was. Even by the gun control advocates' own figures, DGUs happen more often than home fires. That is a FACT.

And DGU's are not a good measuring stick.

Bull$#!7. You were talking about needing a gun for defense. For that, there's no better measuring stick than DGUs.

IF you compare break ins to fires,

Then that doesn't tell you anything because 1) you can use a gun to defend yourself from things other than break-ins, and 2) there are certain break-ins where a gun just isn't going to help you. This would quite certainly be an invalid comparison.

My original claim is above. You are the one who compared it to fire insurance,

No, I just applied your logic to fire insurance. And you still have not answered the question.

It is not irrelevant to my answer to your question

What answer??? You still haven't answered it at all! You've just evaded.

Irrelevant fear mongering on your part.

Evasive name-calling on your part. What I said is true and very much a problem. A false sense of security is worse than no security at all.

Don't you have a real argument?

Several, but you keep ignoring them, instead choosing to call them "irrelevant fear-mongering."

Look above at what I said. I think that the average citizen who feels the need to strap on a gun everywhere they go IS certainly living in fear.

But you come about that by extrapolating your own personal, unique situation to theirs. So it's an invalid argument. And the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that shows how pigheaded you are.

By strapping on a gun everyday you are constantly thinking about needing it, and fearing being attacked.

When you strap on a seat belt every time you drive, are you "constantly thinging about needing it, and fearing" a car accident? I know I don't; it's a matter of habit. I do it largely without consideration. I imagine the same is true for a lot of homeowners. Your argument is crap and every thinking person know is.

Really? You snipped it out of my post and did not address it. Seems like ignoring it to me.

I snipped it for brevity, yes, but I did address it. Now, stop weaseling and answer the question.

You didn't ask it.

YES I DID, YOU LIAR!!! I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES!!! AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER IT!!!!

Dude, you said that I wasn't discussing the relative costs of accidents between firearms and fire extinguishers.

In that particular post at that particular time, you weren't. That does NOT mean that I was saying that you weren't discussing it at all.

But go ahead with the cheap shots, and try and rack up whatever brownie points you think you can. It's obviously more comfortable to you than answering the question.

shanek

28th November 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Now, who was it that accused me of evading..?

I answered someone's direct question. How is that evading?

You're just a pathetic name-caller with no real arguments to provide.

As I've said... three times, I believe we're up to, now... the issue is not about air marshalls or pilots. It's about passengers carrying weapons.

Then why do you refuse to answer my questions about passengers carrying weapons on planes before the gun ban?

shanek

28th November 2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Shooting back makes it VERY inconveniant for the robber. Rolling over, doing everything they want....that makes it hugely conveniant, don't ya think. That only encourages more robbery.

Not to mention the more extreme cases where the robber shoots you anyway to keep you quiet.

I wonder what Mr. M would tell potential rape victims? Just give the guy what he wants and let him rape you?

shanek

28th November 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
"Been noted?"

Bwahahahaha!!

Your ability to dish it out but not take it has been noted.

Uh-huh. Sure. Answer me this: If I had chosen to use italics for emphasis instead of caps, would you have flamed me for the use of italics?

Suddenly

28th November 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I am not talking about anything you may or may not have said to Richard G. You made this response to one of MY posts: Which was in response to my post. You said almost those very words, and 13774 posts later you still think this is a conspiracy against you rather than a misunderstanding on your part. Why you even think this is important is beyond me. Is this getting to you somehow?

"What YOU wrote"...which, since you were responding to a post of mine, means what I wrote, not what Richard G. wrote. The comparison I made was in the post of mine that I quoted to you in full. I am refuting your stylization of my comparison. Let it go. You responded to a post of mine that responded to a post of Richard G's at one point. Then later somehow I'm being misleading. At this point I'm just seeing how far you will go on this irrelevent point before you just forget it and maybe just worry about the substance.

Again, that is irrelevant to the point I was making. We were talking about taking action to prepare for an unlikely eventuality. That is the thing that you were referring to when you said, "Read what you (meaning me) wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life." That IS what I wrote. The fact that comparing the life saving utility of guns vs. that of insurance is a silly comparison was my whole point. I stand by it. It was all I was trying to say on that point.

I was. I was responding to what you said about what I, not Richard G, had written about firearms vs. insurance. YOU made the response to ME. So grow the f*ck up, take some personal responsibility, and either back up your assertion about my post or retract it. Or what? Are you going to "note" my refusal? I just reviewed the thread. I made comments to Richard G's post about insurance, you then responded to my comments with some sort of inane strawman accusation. I responded that your accusation made absolutely no sense in the context of my point. I stand by that statement 100%.

I'm not assuming anything. That's what you SAID. "Read what you (meaning me) wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life." Yes, I said that. As part of your strawman accusation you compared guns and gun training with insurance w/r/t utility of saving lives. I thought that was stupid, especially in context of my response to Richard G that was the whole genesis of that exchange.

As Thanz's claim had nothing to do with the cost variable, I didn't feel I had any obligation to incorporate it into my rebuttal. I guess you do value rhetorical points over enlightened discussion. Such inclusion should be obvious, but I guess this is all just a game to you so I shouldn't be suprised.

I have ignored nothing. I have always said that gun owners are responsible for those injured through their misuse or neglect, just as car owners are with their cars, for example. I do resoundly reject that people who have caused no injury at all to others should be in any way restricted or limited. That has to do with that whole "freedom" thing again. But go ahead and ignore it again and flame me instead if it makes you feel better. That wasn't a flame. Maybe you should read it again, and if you have trouble with my use of caps go take a loong look in the mirror. I think you have a very simplistic concept of what freedom means, and you are so emotionally invested in that concept that any form of rational dialogue with you is impossible; you will simply resort to that sort of "all caps" and sw**r*ng behaviour as a defense mechanism. You truely believe those that disagree with your formulation of "freedom" and "rights" to be representitive of incomprehensible evil. I think that is really sad, and I feel sorry for you in that regard.

What if I were to say that, since most crimes are committed by black people after 10:00 (just a hypothetical; I'm not at all saying this is true) then we should place a curfew on all blacks forbidding them to be outside their homes after 10:00. Would you consider that to be a reasonable limitation, or an egregious taking of their rights? Totally different cost benefit analysis. Many municipalities do this very thing with children. I hope you have the foresight to see that the only place this line of inquiry is going is to a discussion of 2nd amendment principles (or other state formulations of gun rights), and we've been there before and I doubt you really want a legal argument with me.

The simple answer is restricting personal liberty is a far more profound liberty restriction than is the regulation of gun ownership. Thus, any such restrictions would have to be narrowly tailored and so forth, such that a distinction based on race would never be acceptable. This is where you make some statement about the importance of gun rights, then I suggest you are talking through your hat, and off we go...

But the costs would increase to the gun owners who aren't a problem. So, once again, you're willing to sacrifice the rights of the ones who aren't the problem.

Either you are making a "guns are on the whole more good than bad" argument, or a "we have a right so stick your cost-benefit analysis up your butt argument." Right now you switch between the two as it suits you, which is a (not intentionally I'd imagine) less than kosher debating tactic. These are seperate points.

We cannot say before fact that a person is or is not "part of the problem" in that we can not see the future. Either a gun increases safety for the owner and innocent bystanders or it decreases it. Every situation might be different. However, if in general it is shown that private gun ownership reduces the safety of innovent bystanders, then it is appropriate to regulate the guns in a way to encourage optimum safety, by restricting ownership to those that are more likely to use guns safely, as well as resticting type (no bazookas).

To point at a person and say that person's gun ownership will definately never create a negative effect is a fallacy. All we can say is that person has taken every reasonable step to decrease that possibility. If it then can be shown that the guns still create more harm then they prevent, then it makes sense to restrict further.

I'm talking about probability and you want to worry about each person, ignoring that before an event happens we only can determine probobility of good vs. bad. This is the kind of reason why poker is a very good source of income for me; the human mind wants to fixate on certain dramatic events, losing poker players remember when that 2-7 hits a full house and won them $200, but they disregard the many times the 2-7 missed and lost them $10, so they dont notice that the 2-7 has cost them money in the long run.

I'd apply the same analysis to guns. Most people worry about the one time that a gun is useful but ignore the times that a gun causes harm. Anecdotal evidence is an example of that practice.

Thanz

28th November 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, but as I pointed out, you then go and extrapolate YOUR PERSONAL SITUATION to everyone else and say that they're living in fear, when their own personal situation may be quite different from yours. And if you can't see that that's what you've done, then I can only conclude that you're beyond hope.
If they think that they have more reason to carry a gun than I do, that's fine. It doesn't alter the fact that they are living in fear - it just means that the fear may be a smidgen more justifed than it would be in my case.

So answer the question: Would someone in a situation where having a home fire was as or less likely than your likelihood of needing a gun for defense, would they be living in fear by getting a fire extinguisher or fire insurance?
As I (and others) have tried to point out to you, the argument does not transfer to fire insurance or extinguishers. You are comparing apples and automobiles. If someone was constantly checking their fire extinguisher every day and calling their broker to double check their insurance, then yes I would say that they were living in fear of a fire.

And you keep ignoring the costs of owning a firearm vs. fire safety equipment.

The comparison WAS fair. I know you don't want to admit that, but it was. Even by the gun control advocates' own figures, DGUs happen more often than home fires. That is a FACT.
It is not a fair comparison, no matter how many times you say it.

Bull$#!7. You were talking about needing a gun for defense. For that, there's no better measuring stick than DGUs.
I disagree, and really, you should as well. Wouldn't a better measure be the number of times a gun is needed for defense, rather than the number of times it was used?

Then that doesn't tell you anything because 1) you can use a gun to defend yourself from things other than break-ins, and 2) there are certain break-ins where a gun just isn't going to help you. This would quite certainly be an invalid comparison.
What break ins are those that guns wouldn't help you? Richard G seems to think that as long as you have an arsenal everything will be fine.

No, I just applied your logic to fire insurance. And you still have not answered the question.
And again, the argument does not transfer to fire insurance. And I have answered the question.

What answer??? You still haven't answered it at all! You've just evaded.
I answered it in my first reply.

Evasive name-calling on your part. What I said is true and very much a problem. A false sense of security is worse than no security at all.
You have given no reasons to back up your assertion that my sense of security is in any way "false". Saying that other people didn't expect to get robbed does nothing to refute my arguments for my own sense of security. Your blather boils down to "no one is safe!" which is certainly fear mongering.

Several, but you keep ignoring them, instead choosing to call them "irrelevant fear-mongering."
Then what are they? Why is my sense of security "false"? Simply because I don't have a gun?

But you come about that by extrapolating your own personal, unique situation to theirs. So it's an invalid argument. And the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that shows how pigheaded you are.
Always with the insults. I have explained this already as well.

When you strap on a seat belt every time you drive, are you "constantly thinging about needing it, and fearing" a car accident? I know I don't; it's a matter of habit. I do it largely without consideration. I imagine the same is true for a lot of homeowners. Your argument is crap and every thinking person know is.
Please. Are you really saying that the odds of someone being in a car accident are equivalent to the odds of someone needing a gun for defense? Even you should realize the falseness of this assertion.

I snipped it for brevity, yes, but I did address it. Now, stop weaseling and answer the question.
I have answered it several times, and no you did not address the costs argument in your reply to me. And you did not address the other part you snipped either - dealing with the difference between buying a policy once and strapping on a gun every day.

YES I DID, YOU LIAR!!! I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS SEVERAL TIMES!!! AND YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER IT!!!!
Ooooooh. Block capitals. And all those exclamation points - well, you must be right then. Where did you ask me about your paranoia of fires given that you don't cook or light candles?

In that particular post at that particular time, you weren't. That does NOT mean that I was saying that you weren't discussing it at all.
Splitting hairs, and you know it. The fact is you avoided the issue in your reply to me and then tried to insinuate that I hadn't even addressed it.

But go ahead with the cheap shots, and try and rack up whatever brownie points you think you can. It's obviously more comfortable to you than answering the question.
Calling me on "cheap shots"? Please. In this post alone you have said that I am "beyond hope", "weaseling", "pigheaded" and a "liar", but when I specifically quote you and point out the inaccuracy, I am taking "cheap shots". Give it a rest.

Suddenly

28th November 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Uh-huh. Sure. Answer me this: If I had chosen to use italics for emphasis instead of caps, would you have flamed me for the use of italics?

My response was not a simple flame. It did contain a response to your point, at least what point I could extract from your post. Can't really say what I would have said if you would have used italics. I think it makes a significant difference.

Use of caps is generally CONSIDERED SHOUTING WHEN USED IN THIS SORT OF FORUM. Italics are generally considered a means of emphesis.

My flaming has to do more with your use of platitudes than your shouting. However, you didn't really read what I typed because you fixated on the caps, and that I find to be a rather delicious irony.

shanek

28th November 2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Let it go. You responded to a post of mine that responded to a post of Richard G's at one point.

Doesn't matter. You used the words "what you wrote" in a response to me. It doesn't matter what post of yours I responded to; you made a comment about something that I wrote. If you misspoke, just say so, but stop weaseling.

Then later somehow I'm being misleading.

You are, because every time I try to get you to defend or explain your comment about what I wrote, you go on and on about another poster. If that's not being misleading and evasive, then I don't know what is.

At this point I'm just seeing how far you will go on this irrelevent point before you just forget it and maybe just worry about the substance.

I'm trying to get to the substance! I'm trying exactly to get to the substance you were introducing to the thread when you said to me, "Read what you wrote about how guns cost less with a greater chance of saving life." That is what I've been talking about all along. Not what you said to any other poster, but what you said to me about something I said earlier.

If you misspoke, then that's a perfectly valid answer. But as it stands, you have given me no answer at all.

The fact that comparing the life saving utility of guns vs. that of insurance is a silly comparison was my whole point. I stand by it.

And I maintain that my post did not do that; it merely applied Thanz's logic from guns to insurance. And I stand by that.

Or what?

Or you are not taking responsibility for something you said in a public forum.

Yes, I said that. As part of your strawman accusation you compared guns and gun training with insurance w/r/t utility of saving lives.

And I have pointed out to you several times that you are mischaracterizing my post, yet you refuse to even acknowledge that I am doing that.

I guess you do value rhetorical points over enlightened discussion.

Says the guy who uses the choice of caps as emphasis as an excuse to avoid considering the content of a post.

Such inclusion should be obvious,

Why? I was responding to a very specific point of Thanz's, where he did not even consider the cost variable. How would it not be irrelevant for me to include the cost in my examination of his logic? How would it not be a distortion of the very logic he was using? And if cost is such an important factor, then why are you saying all of this to me and not Thanz? Just because Thanz agrees with you?

That wasn't a flame. Maybe you should read it again, and if you have trouble with my use of caps go take a loong look in the mirror.

I don't have any trouble with your use of caps. I just take issue with your using my choice of caps as an emphasizer as a pathetic excuse to avoid the content of my post.

I think you have a very simplistic concept of what freedom means,

And I think your concept of what freedom means is not in any way workable, as it depends on the removal of freedom to make it happen. It's self-contradictory. But you can't refute that, so you just call names.

Totally different cost benefit analysis.

Same logic, though.

Many municipalities do this very thing with children.

Doesn't make it right.

The simple answer is restricting personal liberty is a far more profound liberty restriction than is the regulation of gun ownership.

See, this is the problem: You refuse to acknowledge the forceable compliance with regulations, and the associated costs, by someone who has not caused any trouble at all as a restriction of personal liberty. But it very much is.

I have given many ways you could levy such restrictions and still be in keeping with liberty, such as making the restriction of owning or carrying a firearm a function of sentencing or the use of restraining orders. But you keep ignoring all of this and saying that it's either widespread regulation or nothing at all. But there simply does not have to be any such restrictions.

[personal flames excised]

We cannot say before fact that a person is or is not "part of the problem" in that we can not see the future.

Exactly. Which is why there is no justification for infringing on his rights.

Either a gun increases safety for the owner and innocent bystanders or it decreases it.

Geez...and you accused me of being simplistic! You don't think that has anything to do with certain variables? For example, you don't think that guns in the hands of convicted felons just might have an increased chance of being a threat to the safety of others than guns in the hands of those who have never been convicted of a crime?

To point at a person and say that person's gun ownership will definately never create a negative effect is a fallacy.

Agreed. Now all you have to do is point out where I claimed this.

If it then can be shown that the guns still create more harm then they prevent, then it makes sense to restrict further.

You keep asserting this; this is the very thing I keep wanting you to support, but you never do. When I do, you accuse me of dishonestly changing debating tactics. Sounds like evasion to me.

I'm talking about probability and you want to worry about each person, ignoring that before an event happens we only can determine probobility of good vs. bad.

And you want to ignore that freedom and liberty in this country applies to individuals. But you cannot take away my individual liberty based on what other people are likely to do. It's all about the individual, or at least it should be.