Gun Ownership - are you really safe?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

Peace,
Yeah, I thought of that, too. They ARE imressive! And one shot from one of those, and the whole friggin BLOCK would clear! But aren't the shells pretty expensive for target shooting? Like 50c apiece, or something like that? So for a 50 round set (which is not that much), it would be $25! On the other hand, the .22s would be pretty cheap by comparison.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 11:47 AM

Right you are. These are available as surplus. They are easy to aim and much more effective than handguns.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Midchuck
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:09 PM

GUEST,Not that guest, not the other one, either'

Gte a .44 Magnum and stop fuckin' around.

I know that was said as sarcasm, but for home defense, a .44 mag loaded with .44 specials is arguably a very good choice.

A large, slow, bullet is the best choice for stopping an attacker (and stopping an attacker is the only reason to shoot a human being, unless you're really hungry). A small, fast bullet just goes through. It'll kill him, but only later, after he's killed you. A large, fast bullet will cause so much recoil that you'll flinch unless you're very big, strong, and well trained. And the size of the muzzle opening might make an attacker think twice.

Of course a pump shotgun is the best of all for defense. Not only because of the stopping power and the scary appearance from the front end, but because of the characteristic sound when you work the slide. A lot of bad guys recognize that sound.

Peter

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: bobad
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM

For myself, I'd rather hand over my stuff than to challenge a home invader with a gun.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM

Bobert, I never made mention of militia, or even the Second Amendment. While the Second Amendment seems, when taken in its entirety seems to indicate citizens shall have the right to keep and bear arms, it has been judged to not mean that explicitly. I am not an NRA member, they lost me over the cop killer bullet issue. I think that hanging on a Second Amendment argument will only leave us marginalized and ultimately could mean the loss of rights. I believe the argument should very simply be based on a cause/effect argument, as well as loss of a privilege we currently enjoy with no corresponding benefit. I see most anti gun folks as well meaning, but arguing from an emotional place (pretty hard not to be emotional during times like this week) for something that will not produce the desired effect.

I am not a gun nut, and those of you who know me more than five minutes know that. The asshole trolls don't matter to me. What I am is an ordinary guy, an activist for workers rights and social justice, a dad, a husband, and a hunter/gun owner. None of the stories you relate (I purposely didn't relate my own of being saved during a robbery in E. St. Louis) alter what the numbers and data show us.

Mick

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,HIlO
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 03:00 PM

Guns ought to banned ..full stop. No one on this planet should be able to use, manufacture, or own a gun. They are useless bloody things, like cigarettes, they serve no purpose. Why can we villify smoking and allow"sport" shooting ? I really don't get the need people have for these offensive "tools". IOt isn't the guns that are the "offensive tools"' IMHO.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:02 PM

I live in a sizable city on the West Coast, within a few minutes of downtown. There are two local neighborhood business districts (grocery stores, book stores, drug stores, restaurants, specialty shops), one a couple of blocks to the east, another a couple of blocks to the west. I live in a secured building (locked outside doors, and you have to be buzzed in by someone in the building). We live on the ground floor. Our windows can't be opened wide enough for anything larger than a cat to crawl through (and they are screened, so we don't get many cat visitors), and since they are double-glazed thermo-pane, breaking one would be neither easy nor quiet. The chances of anyone breaking into our apartment are pretty slim.

When my wife and I are out and about, either together or separately, we don't carry more money than we figure we'll need, and we don't carry our credit card (we have two copies of one credit card) unless we plan on using it, and we don't carry the credit cards in our wallets. If someone holds me up, I'll just hand him my wallet. No big deal. I'd be ticked off, but it wouldn't bust me up in business.

As I have said, I own a number of handguns which I used primarily for target shooting and plinking. They are safely under lock and key, and stashed away. I regard them as something like a bagful of golf clubs stuffed into a corner of a closet, and I no longer go golfing. They have appreciated in price since I bought them (one that I purchased for $125 in 1968 is now selling for over a thousand), so when I want some extra cash for something, I'll take them to Stan's Gun Shop (highly reputable; he won't sell a gun to anyone without a background check).

There is a chance, of course, that I could be taken out in a killing spree like the one recently in the news. But statistically speaking, the chance of this happening to me is somewhat smaller than my chance of being struck down by a grapefruit-sized hailstone.

I feel perfectly safe in my own domicile, and when I go out, I do not feel the necessity of loading up my .380 (9 mm. kurtz) Walther PPK and slipping it into its belt holster.

Also, the chances of my getting involved in a bloody uprising seem a bit unlikely. But that depends on a number of things, and I wouldn't totally rule that out.

Don Firth

P. S. Yes, I know the PPK is not a target pistol. The one I used most on the target range was a Smith & Wesson Model 41 (.22 LR).

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,the fine art of logical debate noted
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:22 PM

ya know, kat, you are really starting to show that you don't know what you are talking about

When you attempt to sway by appealling to emotion as opposed to supporting your position with solid fact and demonstrable proof, it is you doing the attacking and attempting to belittle.

Bill, you really disappoint me with all this demagogic stuff

Same old lack of depth

Actually, kat, you need to sharpen up your reading before making a point

Give it a break, Bob.

Bill, all of the points you make are simply gratuitous assertions on your part

Lighten up, Greg. Your age is showing. You made what is known as a gratuitous assertion.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:25 PM

"So, by your arguement, there is NO right to freedom of speech except by unamplified voice in the presence of those listening. And no right to freedom of the printed word unless it is produced by a hand-powered press."

B.B., I'll believe that making that comparison makes sense when you can cite me an example of someone literally talking any parts of several other people's heads off.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:38 PM

Oh, yes, signing in as a guest and attacking is so helpful in a logical debate...you've really made your point, wow, I am underwhelmed.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:41 PM

Ya know, harpy, you should just use your name. Although you now have a new cookie.

But when you are right, you are right. Those comments, even though they were part of a larger point, are uncalled for. I apologize for the tone of them, and I especially apologize for the belittling nature of them. I disagree mightily on the points, but one doesn't have to, and shouldn't be, disagreeable. So to all of you, and especially Bill D and kat, I apologize unreservedly for the belittling tone of those comments.

I think I will start a new thread on that. And harpy, you might consider apologizing for some of your nastiness when people disagree with you. And why don't you quit hiding like a coward and come out and just voice your opinion.

Mick

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM

Well, looks as if bb's last stay at the Betty Forf Clinic has worn off as he is back to trying to put words into other mouhts that others haven't said...

This is a rather bad habit, bb... Just stick with the arguments and leave others to do as well...

And for the record, I made no mention of the 1st amnmendmend, did I???

Yes _______

No_________

Yet you go on saying that I think the freedom of speech is something that the Founding fathers would have prohibited because I don't ***agree with you*** about the 2nd ammendment...

This behavior obn your part is not only irritating but dishonest... I have tried to point this out to you in the past but it seems you are not capable of turning away from debating practices that would have any high school debating coach jumpind down your throat over...

Please discontinue this dishonest and amatuerish dabating tactic... We've all seen it and it makes you look very unintellegent, shich you aren't...

If you can't debate an issue without making up what you wish your opponent had actually said then don't debate... It makes you7 look stupid... No dierespect intended... Just good advice...

Yo, Mick,

Hey, Big Guy... How's tricks in yer part of the world??? Okay... Maybe this discusssion is well beyond just constitutional overtones and given Guantanemo, hey, maybe the constitution isn't waht it used to be??? Yeah, we need to examine cause and effect... We need to use real science and real stats that aren't part of someones political axe to grind... Problem is that the NRA has everyone who is power scared to talk about these issues so what we get is a relentless diet of NRA's, which has a big dog in the race, propaganda... I'd like to see our democratically elected representatives feel as if they could actually use their 1st ammendement rights without the NRA targeting them for personal destruction....

Bobert

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 07:45 PM

Thanks, Mick. I am pretty sure we agree on a whole more than disagree, except on this subject, of course.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:23 PM

.....I guess the 'demogogic' label has got legs, huh?

and I will not waste time demonstrating that I know & recognize "gratuitous assertions" as well as, or better than, most any anonymous trolls. I work overtime to put qualifiers and exceptions in my posts to AVOID the "gratuitous assertions" that I dislike.

I have opinions...my opinions are often milder than many on topics such as this,,,and I WILL make them known to present the sanest, most reasonable views I can manage.

These are serious issues, and because I live in a major metro area, I see & read of many more examples of violence than some of you. Something has to be done. Increasing population and stress & exposure to many forms of violent images and behavior has reduced the freedom for me and others to feel safe. I DO NOT BELIEVE that owning a gun will make me feel safer...and I KNOW that suspecting my neighbors have guns sure wont make me feel safer!

I have read many circuitous ramblings by various people defending gun ownership, but few real ideas from them for actually reducing the stress & violence. I made some, but they were disputed...not because they were illogical...but mostly because they 'might' reduce the 'rights' you hold so dear.....and some were just picked apart on lame technical grounds, ignoring the point of the idea.....and *I* am accused of "gratuitous assertions"...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is very difficult to discern the difference between a man who can't think and one who won't think
."

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM

Well said, Bill...

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:50 AM

Well, this thread's shot.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: nutty
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 05:58 AM

Yes I think people have probably said all they need to say.

As I am British,I wanted to hear other perspectives and I was interested to hear to views of a mixed community such as Mudcat.
I'm glad that this thread hasn't disintegrated into an all out slanging match as so many of these threads do.

I think that , as with politics and religion, there are many views and many reasons for holding those views ... thats what makes us unique individuals and, despite the rights and wrongs of gun ownership, ultimately it is being able to tolerate our differences that is most important.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:47 AM

I won't go into a long diatribe on guns. I will answer the original question, and that is: YES, I do.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Midchuck
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 10:28 AM

Guns ought to banned ..full stop. No one on this planet should be able to use, manufacture, or own a gun. They are useless bloody things, like cigarettes, they serve no purpose.

Here's a purpose. Link probably won't be up long, though.

Peter

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

Bill, can you not see the whole picture precisely because you live in a major metro area with high crime rates? You still have not answered the question as to why decent, law abiding citizens who live in areas unlike yours (the majority of people, btw)should be made to give up the weapons they own? You still haven't indicated how folks that use these weapons for all kinds of legitimate reasons, including teaching responsibility to young people, will solve the problems you want solved. You still haven't addressed the fact that the number of legally owned weapons used in violent crimes is so miniscule as to not be relevant.

Until you, and others as passionate as you, recognize that the problem in the DC metro area isn't legally owned weapons, it is the urban blight and the hopelessness of youth trapped in these area with no prospects, that cause these things to happen. Cho killed because he was ill, not because he could purchase a gun. Never mind the fact that the weapon was purchased (just as in the Columbine case) illegally.

I applaud the intent, but the medicine you would impose would not work. That is demonstrated in an elemental way just by the violent crime stat's in areas with heavy gun control, as opposed to those areas with less controls.

Mick

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:26 AM

Maybe we could get a law passed that would require all criminals to register their guns before they kill or rob. :-)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: nutty
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:40 AM

As I said before --- I think people have said all that needs to be said

Thank you folks

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

Gun ownership is not being made responsibly by the tactics of the NRA. I don't think that I agree with Mick on his stats about gun control vrs. gun crime. These are disputable. Sources please.

The gun lobby represents an industry. Guns are for one purpose alone. To kill.

Most of the rabid defenders of gun-ownship without regulation appear to be a lot like Dick Cheney.

As long as the NRA is allowed to run its rampant lobbying course in Washington, no one is really safe any more.

As Elayne Boosler says, "I'm tired of prying your gun out of your cold dead hands".

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 12:31 PM

Mick...did you read the posts on that other thread (the long one) where I DENIED that "... decent, law abiding citizens who live in areas unlike yours (the majority of people, btw)should be made to give up the weapons they own? " was my point?

Here are two relevant posts, in which I make 'some' suggestions... copied over...

"...and frankly, I am weary of the use of weak, fallacious arguments about how 'hammers' or knives or autos are also deadly in the wrong hands. Fine...I stipulate that I 'might' be assaulted with a brick on a dark street, or that a disgruntled student 'might' drive his car into a crowd. That is not the point!!! The point is that we have guns...ESPECIALLY handguns inaddition to those dangers....we NEED hammers & bricks and cars. I at least have a chance with a kid waving a brick or knife!
   Let guns be restricted to those who genuinely NEED them...let ammunition be **tightly** controlled. Let penalties for being found with a gun or ammunition in violation of licenced NEED be VERY severe!
Let legitimate collectors of firearms be subject to surprise inspections to see that their collection is secure, and in some instances, rendered incapable of firing! (removed firing pins..whatever)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mick...I will agree with you one one thing...*IF*, as is likely, private ownership of a wide variety of firearms is to continue, we desperately need a comprehensive, nation-wide computer system with databases of not only LEGAL owners, but of those judged NOT to be trusted with firearms.

Now, as a working idea, I think that it might be a good idea to rule that ALL firearms permits are to expire, in say, two years, and that ALL owners must re-apply within that period, with severe penalties for anyone found with unregistered guns after that. And VERY severe penalties for anyone found abusing the gun laws...either in sales or use.

Further, in my opinion, we need ONE set of laws, so that someone from DC cannot drive an hour into Virginia and buy what they wish. We need a FULL review of weapons and ammunition types and technology and revised laws reflecting a saner designation of things like 'semi-automatic', so that kids don't find it easy to get AK-47s....and must PROVE why they need certain types of clips!
Those are just quick brainstorming ....there might be more."

Now...I am assuming that I am NOT likely to get some of the more extreme ideas I have suggested implemented...so I am working to imagine how we can proceed- knowing that there are millions of guns out there in the hands of folks who should not have them.

*IF* Mick Lane and similar folks were all I had to worry about, this debate would not be taking place. You ask several times why you should have to give up the guns you have...and I answer that *IF* you can help me figure out how to reduce the threat from idiots, you shouldn't have to!

All I hear is 'well, there laws on the books'...'well, parents and mental health officials and gun outlets need to do more to screen potential dangerous people'....etc. As several have said, ANYONE with $$$$ can get a gun...illegally, if necessary. *I* have made suggestions to combat that situation.....what, if anything is wrong with them? What would YOU suggest, if you don't like mine?

There is a problem....but all you seem preoccupied with is being SURE that no one can take YOUR guns. I need to hear useful, practical alternatives that would make me relax & shut up. Got any?

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

I expect to be ragged on for splitting hairs, but I take mild exception the that statement that guns are made for only one purpose, to kill.


When I first went into law enforcement, one of the statements on the written test was: A sword, in its scabbard, keeps anoter so."
I propose a discussion on the meaning of that phrase. (By the way, I got it right.)

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

A man with a gun is less likely to use it against another man with a gun. Why else would boot camp be so strident about blind obedience?

A

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:48 PM

well, kendall...that phrase is similar to the one we used during the arms race with the Soviet Union. "mutually assured destruction".

I understand the 'theory' that if both sides are armed, neither will be too quick on the trigger, but that feeling comes in gradations of attitude, depending on the weapons involved.
   With atomic bombs, it worked pretty well. With fists & teeth, it barely works at all. Other weapons are in between.
I heard an interview with a member of a DC street gang a few years ago in which he was asked "why use guns to settle silly arguments?" His reply was, approximately, "Man...fighting is work and you might lose! If you got a gun, it be fast and simple. A guy diss you, you just blow him away...easy!"

*shrug*...as long as that culture in common, "a sword in its scabbard" doesn't stay there.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: mg
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM

no one is safe anyway....we live in times of international terror, domestic situations awash in drug use, a violent culture...we need a large number of guns in society, and people trained to use them and of course disciplined in their use. But nothing can make us safe really. Kiss it goodbye. mg

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

NRA's official magazines have a page near the beginning of each issue entitled "The Armed Citizen" and it consists of 7 or 8 articles selected from newspapers from all around the nation. They are stories of how citizens have used firearms to thwart or stop cold criminal, murderers housebreakers and the like, from perpetrating their intended crimes. Often it's the elderly or women or even children, the weak and seemingly defenseless who are attacked. The gun equalizes the situation and gives the intended victim a fighting chance. Much more often than not, the intended victim comes through unscathed. The little caption that precedes the column states guns are used over 2 million times each year to halt crimes.

I would counter the argument which someone made earlier that a gun is never a defensive weapon. It obviously IS a defense against personal assault and other crimes. And if someone is attacking you with his little broadsword, wouldn't you rather defend with a gun? I know I would!

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,amazed at this logic
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 06:21 PM

Congratulations for killing the desperate Black man who held you up, Slag. I'm so glad you can defend yourself in such a reasonable and honorable manner.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 07:17 PM

You still haven't indicated how folks that use these weapons for all kinds of legitimate reasons, including teaching responsibility to young people, will solve the problems you want solved.


If young people in America need gun lessons to be responsible young people - then there really is no hope.

The illogicality (if there's a word?) of that argument beggars belief.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:10 PM

I just don't get it... When reasonable people say stuff like, "Hey, maybe we need to renew the background check laws to keep guns outta the hands of violent people" then the gun owners hear for some reason that is beyond my comprehension "Hey, we need to take everyone's gun"????????

Where does this come from???

No one here has advocated taking everyone's guns... Not Bill... Not me... No one...

But here we have folks lined up to testify on how we are safre with guns and how they don't want anyone messing with their guns???

I believe that the term "knee-jerk reaction" has neever been more on target then in this thread by NRA brainwashed people...

Give me a danged break and argue for or against others positions without inventing what you folks think the other side has said,,,

Geeeze...

And you, Mick, of all people???

Disgustingly shamefull arguements....

Bobert

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Midchuck
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:16 PM

Congratulations for killing the desperate Black man who held you up, Slag. I'm so glad you can defend yourself in such a reasonable and honorable manner.

I went back and read Slag's post again. I saw no mention of skin color of either perp or victim. So it must be Guest who is assuming that violent crime is limited to Blacks. Shameful racism if you ask me.

Peter

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: mg
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:24 PM

It might be that there really is no hope and it might be we are wrong. I think we have to prepare as if there werehope, but also great threats, and certainly not give a message of hopelessness to the young, but realize that we live, as most of humanity has and does, live in very dangerous times. mg

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:31 PM

Amazed guest must have had a brain-fart. I've never killed anyone, black , white or indifferent. Yuh, the stuff that passes for logic these days!!! Learn how to read, then how to think, then look me up and we'll have a discussion.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:38 PM

I mentioned elsewhere that I have twice had guns pointed at me by people other than law enforcement officers. On neither occasion would my having a gun done anything else but exacerbate the situations.

People who suggest that no one have guns are as out to lunch as those who say anyone should have guns.

I use guns as a tool. I hunt and then use the gun to kill meat. I suppose I could use trapping techniques and clubs instead, but one bullet is faster and easier. From my perspective, guns have no utility beyond target practise and hunting.

***********************************************

"So it must be Guest who is assuming that violent crime is limited to Blacks."

It sure as hell wasn't Slag.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 08:54 PM

Sorry, Slag. Cross-posted with you.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:09 PM

'S'alright Bruce. Thank you. You bring up a good point. There are many times when, for even the armed person to give up the money if no other violence is going down. What are a few dollars compared to a human life. And such is often what actually happens. I have read plenty of accounts of such things happening. At the very least, I wouldn't want to get involved with all the paperwork and endless questioning. Reporting the crime is hassle enough.

I know of one case personally where a fellow was being beaten by two men. He had a CCW but tried to duke it out with them rather than produce a gun. But when he knew he was losing consciousness ( one of the guys was already starting to rifle his pockets) he knew they'd find the gun and feared they'd use it on him so he drew it and they took off running.

Like insurance: you really don't want to have to use it but it's sure nice to know it's there when you really need it.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:13 PM

Well, I have read some reasonable comments lately...(they must be..*grin*, they agree with ME).. Peace notes some sane, useful ways that guns are utilitarian, and refers to the problems inherent in using them otherwise. Bobert, at least, heard the point I was trying to make, and was aware of some of the excesses of replies to me.

On the other hand, Slag refers to "... stories of how citizens have used firearms to thwart or stop cold criminal, murderers housebreakers and the like, from perpetrating their intended crimes. "

I rather doubt the NRA magazine mentions the stories about shopkeepers and homeowners, etc., shot by criminals as they TRIED to grab for weapons. (Stories of old ladies who drove off robbers with their old Colt make good reading, but when I worked part-time in a liquor store years ago, I was told.."if they want the money, GIVE IT TO THEM." If I knew that bulge in his pocket was probably just a flashlight, I might try one of those 'hit him with the bottle of Jack Daniels...Gallo Port tricks.)

I also wonder if they recount the number of accidental shootings by kids & others who have more access than training...statistics are important, but let's have ALL the statistics, reported & analyzed by a neutral agency or committee, so we could devise a strategy based on good data.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

People who are not trained in the use of firearms should not try to be a hero. All you have to do is hesitate for a couple of seconds and you are dead. That is, if you don't shoot your own foot off.

The NRA would never print that story about the man who woke in the night, heard someone in the hall, grabbed his gun and blew his daughter away. She got up to pee and ended up dead. This was not an isolated incident either. It happens much too frequently.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 07 - 09:50 PM

..and a corollary of Kendall's point is that a large number of the people who are likely to need protection FROM firearms are not the sort who are easily trainable in the use OF them. It takes a certain type of personality to work with guns easily and competently and stay mentally prepared to use them.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 05:28 AM

There are 10,000 people in Maine who are licensed to carry concealed. That scares me. Handling a long gun is almost second nature to a rural Mainer, but a hand gun is a whole other bag of rats.I can't believe that all of those people are qualified to carry. Where did they get their training?

Gun violence seems to be on the rise, it makes the news, and it causes us to worry. However, the thought of EVERYONE carrying a gun is just not acceptable.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: nutty
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:33 AM

Gun violence seems to be on the rise, it makes the news, and it causes us to worry. However, the thought of EVERYONE carrying a gun is just not acceptable.

I agree Kendall but that's the message that your society is giving to their young people.

Here in the UK plenty of people are licensed to have a weapon usually a shotgun, particularly if they are part of the farming community but there are rigid checks on storage and handling.

Of the two main atrocities regarding guns in my lifetime one man had been trained by the army(Hungerford) and the other was a member of a gun club(Dunblane).

Generally, the population has no experience of guns although we hear that among the gangs in the inner cities carrying a gun is beginning to be the norm.

The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise.

Perhaps in time our society will become like the USA where carrying a gun is the norm but I sincerely hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:47 AM

Last July a certain whacko rolled a pig's head into a Mosque "as a joke." He was charged with a hate crime by desicrating a place of worship. State charges were still pending, and yeaterday he went to a local store with a gun. The Police came and he refused to surrender, but instead, shot himself in the head.
I make no comment.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:57 AM

>Reminding us that several recent situations were resolved by private
>individuals, including schools/universities, but the vast majority of the
>press stories did not mention it!!
> When mass killers meet armed resistance.
>It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an
>immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn't Virginia
>Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away.
>You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip
>down Route 460 through Tazewell.It was January 16, 2002 when Peter
>Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades.
>Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to "come get me".
>The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost
>immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor
>and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest,
>one in the stomach and one in the throat.Many students heard the shots. Two
>who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school
>having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy
>was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a
>handgun locked in the vehicle.Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he
>later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both
>approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were
>pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his
>weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his
>weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and
>was physically attacked. But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three
>students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa
>is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when
>he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that
>day, thanks to armed resistance.You wouldn't know much about that though.
>Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out
>the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the
>gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students
>were now armed didn't get a mention.James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this
>fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: "A Lexus-Nexis search
>revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either
>Bridges or Gross was armed." This 2002 article noted "This was a very
>public shooting with a lot of media coverage." But the media left out
>information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing
>spree.He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many
>articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not
>a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until
>today I didn't know the full story.Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He
>felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a
>trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to
>the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two
>students and wounded seven others.He had the incident planned out. He would
>start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the
>distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus.
>From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and
>start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill
>himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him.
>Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.What Woodham
>hadn't planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick .
>Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn't have a handgun in the school. But
>he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside
>and retrieved the gun.As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was
>in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at
>the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick
>approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered
>immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed
>resistance.So you didn't know about that. Neither did I until today.
>Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were "687 articles on the school shooting in
>Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that" Myrick had used a gun to
>stop Woodham "four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived."Many people
>probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a
>school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on
>the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started
>shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had
>gathered.It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who
>captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further
>victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.It was February 12th of this
>year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt
>Lake City. The mall was a self-declared "gun free zone" forbidding patrons
>from carrying weapons. He wasn't worried. In fact he appreciated knowing
>that his victims couldn't defend themselves.He opened fire even before he
>got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As
>he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more
>people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The
>shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.What he didn't know is
>that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs
>informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer
>but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City.
>By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left
>his firearm in his vehicle.It's a good thing he didn't. He was sitting in
>the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her
>to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman.
>The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated.
>From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he
>had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter
>until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There
>would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.In each of
>these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is
>clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his
>killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately
>apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was
>apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.Three of these cases
>involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case
>the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he
>had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of
>the mall's gun free policy.What would have happened if these people waited
>for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the
>police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter
>was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the
>local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.Consider the horrific events at
>Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a "gun free zone". He kills two
>victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours
>on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus
>and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And
>all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the "no
>gun" policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM!
>And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the
>killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police
>arrived all they dealt with were the dead.There were many further victims
>that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free
>Edition.Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date:
>4/19/2007 5:56 PM
>_________________________________________________________________
>Explore the seven wonders of the world
>http://search.msn.com/results

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: GUEST,GUEST,what, what, what
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 07:15 AM

"The main difference in this country is that we have no gun shops in our shopping centres or towns, so we very few opportunities to obtain a gun legitimately or otherwise"

Nutty - I'm sorry to take issue over one sentence when I respect some of your heartfelt sorrow and questioning of the bigger issues but that statement about "no" gun shops in our towns is simply not TRUE. My own home town/city has had a gun shop in existence for donkey's years and is still open for business in a shopping centre that charges such high rates for retail outlets that most of the smaller businesses have gone. I have no idea what added restrictions they may have in trading in recent years or particular interest in finding out but I refuse to believe that they are the only one in the country.   It is sometimes too easy to use our personal experiences as being facts when they often are not.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: nutty
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 08:19 AM

I don't deny that there may be shops in this country (UK) but they are the exception rather than the rule and most are confined to the type of weapon used by the gun enthusiast for pest control or target shooting.
I did Google to see how many I could track down and found 4.

I would be very surprised if you could legitimately buy an automatic pistol such as was used in the Virginia massacre. but I may be wrong.

More worrying, however, are the site peporting to be selling guns online

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Slag
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM

Yes Bill D. The NRA column are stories from newspapers. If a defender is hit in an exchange of gun fire that is included in the story. I don't recall ever seeing one where a defender is killed and the bad guys got a way. I know that probably happens from time to time. The skill or the circumstances of the defender may work against him or her and the outcome may be negative in total. That's not the point. The point is, they HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE! Unarmed, they have NO CHANCE!

Most crooks are cowards to begin with. They want to cheat at Life's game. They use fear and intimidation to get what they want and, like bullies, when someone stands up to them they flee. Sociopaths are another story, HOWEVER, an armed defense still serves.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:15 PM

"The point is, they HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE! Unarmed, they have NO CHANCE!"

piffle...the point is, **unless** you are trained AND have ready access to a weapon and don't have one aimed at you, you are FAR better off just cooperationg! What is this 'defender' bit? Are you in the Alamo, expecting an attack? 99.9% of us are just minding our own business.

'Sometimes' a shopkeeper who KNOWS he could be robbed will gain an advantage, and sometimes a in a rural setting, an intruder on your property can be dissuaded IF you know soon enough...but even folks who DO know guns are usually not prepared at a moments notice to react to someone who actually has a weapon in hand.

I can see the sane, legitimate uses of firearms, but I shudder at the idea of an armed populace carrying guns around 'just to be safe'...they won't be.

Subject: RE: Gun Ownership - are you really safe?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Apr 07 - 06:27 PM

In reading those accounts of heroic, armed people taking action against a gun-wielding person, I can't help being glad that it ended that way. (On the other hand, what if the Assistant Principal in that story had, in the excitement, mistaken someone else in the escaping car for the killer?)

If gun owners keep their guns locked in their cars I can see their utility. (When I drove into Canada from the US on my way to Alaska, Customs asked me if I had a gun. I said, truthfully, No, but I do have a hunting knife in the glove box. Only because my brothers didn't want me to be defenseless. The border agent laughed and said it wasn't a problem.)

I can see why a person who is used to guns might carry one while he or she is traveling. However, I couldn't do it, mostly because I can't imagine my getting the mindset that would let me use it.

Do you know that there are many - sane - people who believe that when one goes armed through bear country, that person is less safe? The thinking is that when we travel unarmed in the wilderness we are more respectful, less confrontational; a gun or rifle can make someone 'spoil for a fight'.