WOT: Gun Buy Outs

"Charlie Self" wrote:

==================================
You need to check state game laws before making statements covering
the entire eastern area. In Virginia, we have a breakdown in hunting
seasons that goes something like this: muzzleloaders (they are still
rifles, though); archery; rifle. There is no specific shotgun season,
nor any need for one, though I think pumps with buckshot or slugs may
be used. Turkeys are considered shotgun game.
==================================
Nowhere did you post an AK47 season which was my point.
====================================
I've got a hunting friend out in Nevada, who is also something of a
gun nut. I can't recall him ever even owning a "saddle gun" .30-.30.
=================================
Definitely light weight for long range work

===================================
Basically, it's difficult to jam people into categories when it comes
to owning guns and using them, whether you're writing of hunting in
general or in specific areas, or even about political party
affiliations.
===================================
No attempt to generalize but rather to point out that an AK47 is not a
sport hunting weapon, but rather specifically designed to kill people.

Lew

David G. Nagel wrote:
>>
> Not all eastern states have a high population density. Pennsylvania
> has vast areas of extremely low population. It also has several large
> areas where deer hunting is permitted. My grandfather used to hunt
> every year and got his bag each time. He used a pump action rifle
> that used the Remington 35 caliber cartridge. Shot guns were used for
> birds only.

The politicians describe Pennsylvania as "Philidelphia in the east,
Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between."

On May 11, 6:44=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> > "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> "HeyBub" wrote:
>
> >>> First, what evidence is there that these people didn't need killin'?
> >>> Secondly, might it not be the case that considerably MORE people need
> >>> to be shot.
>
> >> Get some help, you need it.
>
> >> Lew
>
> > Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that
> > there are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each year
> > and "bad guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot... Others who
> > are involved in gun regulation research and politics have written
> > similar things. It's not that the defensive gun users want to shoot
> > anybody... the idea is to stop whatever action led the defensive gun
> > user to shoot. As stated by the original poster it was a rather
> > inflammatory statement. Worded as someone like Gary Kleck, Dave Kopel,
> > Gary Mauser, or Don Kates might say it it would look much more reasonab=
le.
>
> > John
>
> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?

As a for instance, if I'm standing at one end of my living room, and
some clown with a knife is bleeding on the floor inside my kicked open
door, we can probably let the cops guess.

On May 12, 2:12=A0pm, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > LD wrote:
>
> >> They're pay $100 bucks for turned in guns?! Do you have to prove it's
> >> illegal?
>
> > Usually these events are "no questions asked."
>
> > Those who run these programs won't tell you, but I often wonder when th=
e
> > Buffalo cops run the serial numbers the next day how many guns they fin=
d
> > that were last seen on the hip of an Arizona State Trooper found shot t=
o
> > death on the side of the road.
>
> > Further, I have never heard of a stolen weapon being turned in during o=
ne
> > of these "buy back" schemes that was returned to its rightful owner.
>
> Supposedly the guns are destroyed, right?

I don't know about running serial numbers, but the big brag here was
destroying the "guns," all one of them.

On May 12, 12:38=A0am, fftt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 11, 7:34=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "fftt" wrote:
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Lew-
>
> > From your posts I'm getting the impression that you;re a gun
> > prohibitionist or an advocate of major gun restrictions.
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > Absolutely not true.
>
> > Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi.
>
> > If you want to hunt deer east of the Mississippi, it will probably be
> > with a plugged pump shotgun and slugs.
>
> > West of the Mississippi, probably a 30-30 saddle gun for deer, a 30-06
> > for larger game.
>
> > In any event, it won't be an AK47.
>
> > Have a collection of long guns, was a crack marksman in my youth,
> > which allowed me to put some meat on the table; however, haven't
> > hunted in years.
>
> > Returned to where I grew up last summer, most of the places I hunted
> > are now sub-divisions.
>
> > If I were to have a hand gun, it would be a 10 gauge, double barrel
> > shot gun, loaded with 00 buckshot and with stock and barrels shortened
> > to the point they would be illegal.
>
> > My first and only shot would be directly at the genitals.
>
> > Hopefully wouldn't kill him, but his desire to live would be
> > significantly diminished.
>
> > Lew
>
> Lew-
>
> Shooting the wound is a sign that the shot (in many states) was not
> "necessary" =A0and could subject you to prosecution in those states.
> Shooting to dismember is probably illegal as well.
>
> btw =A0the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or even personal defense
>
> You might find the following books / writings =A0informative; =A0John
> Adams, Founding Brothers and The Federalist Papers
>
> =A0the 2nd amendment was written as the "control-alt-delete" for the US
> govt
>
> for liberals amoung us........imagine all deadly force invested in the
> govt lead by a follow on to GW.
> for the conservatives us........imagine all deadly force invested in
> the govt lead by Hillary or Nancy
>
> I prefer deadly force to be invested in my friends, neighbors &
> family.....I'll gladly take my chances with criminals & crazies, they
> typically kill one (or few) at a time. =A0It takes a "state" to kill in
> vast numbers.
>

Possibly the original intent of the Second Amendment was to allow a
bunch of malcontents to render the government worthless, but I don't
think so. It's more likely that a "well-regulated militia" meant that
any able bodied citizen should be armed and ready to protect the
nation from attack from external enemies. Back in those days, the
alternative to a muzzle loading rifle was a muzzle loading cannon,
usually employed by governments, sometimes by others.

Today, the citizen's Glock 10 or .308 or even Barret .50 is trumped by
almost any government's multi-barreled machine guns that are hundreds
of times more deadly. Those weapons we, and most of the world, can
legally own would need extremely proficient use from long range to be
of any value at all. The big guns are still on the side of government,
so while marksmen could make life difficult, other weapons and other
tactics would be needed. That's what our troops are running into in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Possibly the Afghans are better shots than the
Iraqis, but I've seen little or no evidence to indicate that even one
in a thousand could hit a barn when they're standing inside the thing.
Mostly it's a childish rattling of automatic weapons stuck around a
corner. It's the IEDs and suicide bomber screwballs that create the
problems.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> No attempt to generalize but rather to point out that an AK47 is not a
>> sport hunting weapon, but rather specifically designed to kill people.
>
> Or, maybe just something to show off. Not much different essentially than
> some of the flakes who driver their fully decked out Hummers downtown in
> rush hour traffic everyday.
>
>

...or even something to just admire. There are people who simply appreciate
the "machine" aspects of various guns. Lots of reasons why enthusiasts and
hobbyists delve into their interests.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> real facts. Consider this - Charlie's original comment merely mentioned
>> that he had two friends with CCP's. One feared everything and the other
> was
>> a strutter. Based on what Charlie said, neither did anything more than
>> carry concealed. Note the last word - concealed. They did not brandish
>> their weapon around based on either of their personality traits as
> described
>
> I never said they brandished their weapons. I didn't have to. I made the
> statement that if they were going to carry firearms, then under certain
> conditions they were prepared to use them. Or, are you going to argue that
> point? And if someone is prepared to use a weapon, the it's preferred that
> they be confident and in control and not be fearful or overly confident.
> Which is what the two people in question were.

So - they have no history not being confident and in control, but you went a
long way to talk about fearful people and strutting people. Remember saying
things like waving a gun about, etc.? You are a complete joke and I'm done
with this conversation.

>
> Obviously, you're too caught up in your rhetoric to recognize this. Go
> take
> a valium will you?
>
>> Fuck you. I'm about tired of the way you present yourself here. Terms
> like
>> rampant delusions serve only to expose your own personality and do
>> nothing
>> to represent the manner in which I have conducted myself in this
>> interchange. You clearly lack the ability to communicate without 1)
> insult,
>> 2) rage, 3) projection, and 4) red herrings.
>
> There you go. I'm guilty of all these trangressions, but you're free to
> swear at me. Small world ain't it? You're obviously incapable of keeping
> your own anger in check. That's confirmation that you are dangerous.

Please - life around you must be a joy. You clearly practice the
undesirable art of throwing the first stone, only to whine about returned
fire. Fine - you're just a loser in life and I'm happy to let you be so.
You've only proven yourself to be pathetic in this entire discourse. I'm
happy to end it at this time.

>
>> Nothing you write makes any sense.
>
> And that's how you skip the entire subject of this particular section
> because you can't answer it. I'm really not surprised. I don't make any
> sense but you are the raving nutbar in this little tet-a-tet.
>

There is nothing to answer. Have a nice day.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On May 12, 3:55=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
> > I used to teach college level courses inside maximum security
> > prisons...
>
> That must have been very interesting.
>
> Certainly gives you a perspective, most of us, including me, don't
> have.
>
> > While many of the violent inmates were under the influence of drugs
> > and/or alcohol during the commission of their crime(s), some were
> > simply deranged. Reasoning works with neither and an armed civilian
> > could very well have been spared their life or physical harm if
> > they'd been armed... the inmates agreed with me on that! They don't
> > want to be shot any more than "normal" people do... which is why
> > simply displaying a firearm often ends the incident.
>
> I don't have a problem with someone carrying a sidearm, IF, a big IF,
> they have received proper training, which includes but is not limited
> to practice range time, updated on a regular basis.
>
> Here in California, every one in law enforcement, who carries a
> sidearm, has to qualify on the range every 30 days.
>
> I doubt most amateur gun owners could meet that standard.
>
> (SFWIW, I got a lot of lead resource for a 20,000 lb ballast for a
> sailboat I built from those range pits.)
>
> (Today, even with the HazMat experience I had, couldn't do it. EPA has
> really clamped down)
>
> I sure most other states have similar training programs in place.
>
> It's the "fruit cakes" that concern me, not the pros.
>
> Lew

Lew-

I think that you elevate the typical LEO's gun skills over that of
"amateur gun owners" (what ever that classification might mean)

First of all most deadly handgun incidents occur at very close
range...... ranges at which there is not much more needed than point
and shoot.

When I was a kid most cops carried revolvers...now its mostly high cap
semi's.

Funny thing is...the number of rounds expended by LEO's in a "gun
fight" have greatly increased but the number of "hits' has not had a
commensurate increase.

since you hale from LA.....you must remember the (a few years ago?)
incident where group of LA County Deputy Sheriffs opened fire on a
suspect in a residential neighborhood in a suburban. Something like
a 100 rounds fired....everything but the suspect was hit.

the fact is ...most LEO's are not great shots :(

the good news is....they don't need to be :)


cheers
Bob

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> That said, I've got to say I only know a couple of people who carry
> around here, and it's a 50-50 split between one guy who fears
> everything, and the other who is a strutting horse's ass.

Sounds like a tossup on which one is more dangerous.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> things like waving a gun about, etc.? You are a complete joke and I'm
done
> with this conversation.

Funny, you keep replying. You're too easy to troll. Means you've got a
dimished intellect. :)

> undesirable art of throwing the first stone,

I comment to Charlie and you come after me with all guns blazing. Now you're
a liar. What else do we need to know about you?

> There is nothing to answer. Have a nice day.

I'd say the same to you, but it's not in your nature.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> You do realize that the definition of "assault rifles" is merely code
> for "scary-looking guns"? The so-called assault rifles are merely
> cosmetic
> elements applied to semi-automatic rifles. Calling them "assault rifles"
> makes gullible people think that the government is banning machine guns
> which have already been heavily restricted since the 1930's.
>

Or something as simple as a pump shotgun, simply because it has the right
bolt on components.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"charlie" wrote:

> lack of water

Nah.

We steal all we need from up north.

The Aquaduct was built for a reason.

Lew

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, what evidence is there that these people didn't need killin'?
>>>> Secondly, might it not be the case that considerably MORE people need
>>>> to be shot.
>>>
>>> Get some help, you need it.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that there
>> are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each year and "bad
>> guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot... Others who are
>> involved in gun regulation research and politics have written similar
>> things. It's not that the defensive gun users want to shoot anybody...
>> the idea is to stop whatever action led the defensive gun user to shoot.
>> As stated by the original poster it was a rather inflammatory statement.
>> Worded as someone like Gary Kleck, Dave Kopel, Gary Mauser, or Don Kates
>> might say it it would look much more reasonable.
>>
>> John
> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?

Think about it - they're the ones that aren't sticking their guns in other
people's faces demanding money, and such. Sheese...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lTMOl.16749$%[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used to teach college level courses inside maximum security
>>>> prisons...
>>>
>>> That must have been very interesting.
>>>
>>> Certainly gives you a perspective, most of us, including me, don't have.
>>>
>>>> While many of the violent inmates were under the influence of drugs
>>>> and/or alcohol during the commission of their crime(s), some were
>>>> simply deranged. Reasoning works with neither and an armed civilian
>>>> could very well have been spared their life or physical harm if they'd
>>>> been armed... the inmates agreed with me on that! They don't want to be
>>>> shot any more than "normal" people do... which is why simply displaying
>>>> a firearm often ends the incident.
>>>
>>> I don't have a problem with someone carrying a sidearm, IF, a big IF,
>>> they have received proper training, which includes but is not limited to
>>> practice range time, updated on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> Here in California, every one in law enforcement, who carries a sidearm,
>>> has to qualify on the range every 30 days.
>>>
>>> I doubt most amateur gun owners could meet that standard.
>>
>> Few of the LEOs I know could meet that frequency standard. LEOs as a
>> class aren't necessarily into guns, it's just a tool of their trade.
>> Along that line of thinking, a criminal justice professor associate of
>> mine refers to rank and file LEOs as "trade unionists" and the non-union
>> LEOs as "politicians." A bit crass perhaps, but upon reflection it's a
>> pretty good generalization.
>>
>> As research I went through about 100 hours of armed guard training. I was
>> looking at the organizational issues surrounding the industry.... I
>> consistently out shot and scored higher on the exams than all the folks
>> pursuing it as a vocation. Quite frankly, I'd be afraid to hold that job
>> if my skill level was a low as many of them... but the shooting standards
>> were the same as a typical LEO was required to meet!
>>
>> I do have grave concerns about denying people the means to defend
>> themselves and their families by "pricing them out of the market." This
>> via expensive mandatory training, mandatory "technology," and punitive
>> licensing fees and processes. The people most likely to need the
>> defensive weapons are those least likely to be able to afford the
>> standards demanded by legislative efforts. Victim disarmament is also
>> class warfare... People like Schumer and Kennedy have armed bodyguards
>> but the lower income folks they represent apparently aren't worth having
>> alive based on the pols efforts to disarm the populace.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> A number of years ago in Chicago 8 (count em 8) of Chicago's finest caught
> an offender in the stair well of one of the apartment buildings in town.
> The offender made appropriate moves to bring down the wrath of the cops
> upon him, over 60 rounds were fired by the cops. Not a one hit the
> offender. The chief was so enraged over this display of firearms
> proficiency that he suspended every one of the detectives and ordered them
> to qualify (not re qualify but qualify) on the gun range before they could
> go back to work and resume being paid. The offender went to jail.


Shoot, that's nothing! Any TWO Portland or Beaverton Oregon cops can and do
get off 40 rounds all on their lonesome with similar results. In fact, two
Portland cops fired that many at one perp and he got caught when he went to
an ER later for treatment of a bullet Fragment in his right heel. To be
fair, the guy was running and it was at night - on a well lit street.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> No attempt to generalize but rather to point out that an AK47 is not a
> sport hunting weapon, but rather specifically designed to kill people.

Or, maybe just something to show off. Not much different essentially than
some of the flakes who driver their fully decked out Hummers downtown in
rush hour traffic everyday.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "fftt" wrote:
> ================================
> Lew-
>
> From your posts I'm getting the impression that you;re a gun
> prohibitionist or an advocate of major gun restrictions.
> ====================================
>
> Absolutely not true.
>
> Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi.

Absolutely correct, but you are presuming upon yourself the priviledge of
determining why a person might "need" a gun. What about the hobby aspect of
it? People who just like guns and own them for nothing more than the sake
of taking them to the range and shooting them? It's really none of of
yours, or my business whether we think anyone "needs" a particular gun. If
it's legal, then who are you or I to decide if they "need" it?

>
> If you want to hunt deer east of the Mississippi, it will probably be with
> a plugged pump shotgun and slugs.

Or a rifle. Or a handgun. Or a bow...

>
> West of the Mississippi, probably a 30-30 saddle gun for deer, a 30-06 for
> larger game.

You are really out of touch Lew.

>
> In any event, it won't be an AK47.

So what? Why does that matter to you so?

>
> Have a collection of long guns, was a crack marksman in my youth, which
> allowed me to put some meat on the table; however, haven't hunted in
> years.
>
> Returned to where I grew up last summer, most of the places I hunted are
> now sub-divisions.
>
> If I were to have a hand gun, it would be a 10 gauge, double barrel shot
> gun, loaded with 00 buckshot and with stock and barrels shortened to the
> point they would be illegal.

And you call that a handgun? By the way - the gun you describe would
probably be considered an assault weapon by the people that get all
emotional about the looks of a gun (while not knowing a damned thing about
guns). Do you really want to be known to be lusting for an assualt gun Lew?

>
> My first and only shot would be directly at the genitals.

If that floats your boat...


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On May 14, 9:51=A0pm, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2009-05-14, David G. Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > predators that culled the herd of weak and unfit animals. They are gone
>
> A fact that seems to elude even dept fish/game twits. =A0Florida had a SE=
VERE
> case of deer over population, they starving by the truck-load, but don't =
let
> them damn savage hunters in. =A0Similar scenarios in other states are all=
too
> common.
>
> nb

Virginia isn't like that--I think the current bag limit, all season,
in my county is 7, which is among the highest in the state. But we
have intense deer population problems that cause deer/car collisions
more often than most people would like. I tapped two in 8 years, with
one running into me, and the other trying to jump over the frigging
hood. I was doing 7mph with the first, and about 10 with the second.
Both caused $2,000 damage.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A lot of the land in SoCal is uninhabited, so the rest has a rather
> high population density.

Why is that, terrain not flat enough?

On May 11, 10:34=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "fftt" wrote:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Lew-
>
> From your posts I'm getting the impression that you;re a gun
> prohibitionist or an advocate of major gun restrictions.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Absolutely not true.
>
> Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi.
>
> If you want to hunt deer east of the Mississippi, it will probably be
> with a plugged pump shotgun and slugs.
>
> West of the Mississippi, probably a 30-30 saddle gun for deer, a 30-06
> for larger game.
>
> In any event, it won't be an AK47.
>
> Have a collection of long guns, was a crack marksman in my youth,
> which allowed me to put some meat on the table; however, haven't
> hunted in years.
>
> Returned to where I grew up last summer, most of the places I hunted
> are now sub-divisions.
>
> If I were to have a hand gun, it would be a 10 gauge, double barrel
> shot gun, loaded with 00 buckshot and with stock and barrels shortened
> to the point they would be illegal.
>
> My first and only shot would be directly at the genitals.
>
> Hopefully wouldn't kill him, but his desire to live would be
> significantly diminished.
>
> Lew

You need to check state game laws before making statements covering
the entire eastern area. In Virginia, we have a breakdown in hunting
seasons that goes something like this: muzzleloaders (they are still
rifles, though); archery; rifle. There is no specific shotgun season,
nor any need for one, though I think pumps with buckshot or slugs may
be used. Turkeys are considered shotgun game.

For years, I kept a sawed off 12 gauge under the edge of my bed, but
it was legal--barely. I did NOT load it to kill, using #6 birdshot.
From 10-12 feet away, that's discouraging enough. Sawed off to a
pistol grip, it handled well in small spaces, but kicked like the
proverbial mule, especially with magnum loads. I'd hate to have to
handle a need for a second barrel on target in any kind of rush with a
10 gauge. Lightly loaded shotguns are good for indoor defense as
they're less likely to penetrate flimsy walls between rooms and hurt
someone unintended. Collaterial damage is unacceptable if the damaged
one is your wife or kid or even the family dog.

I've got a hunting friend out in Nevada, who is also something of a
gun nut. I can't recall him ever even owning a "saddle gun" .30-.30.
His guns fire more exotic rounds at much longer ranges. Uzis? Not many
legal versions around, as the full auto model requires a tax stamp, as
do full auto AK47s.

Basically, it's difficult to jam people into categories when it comes
to owning guns and using them, whether you're writing of hunting in
general or in specific areas, or even about political party
affiliations.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Here in L/A, the gun issue revolves around drugs and the gang wars.
>
> Almost every night there is a report on the evening news of a drive by
> shooting in broad daylight, often with heart breaking results.

A social problem that has absolutely nothing to do with legal firearms.

>
> Not uncommon for an innocent kid, often under the age of 10, to be gunned
> down in the cross walk as a gang car drives down the street shooting
> anything in sight in an attempt to capture turf.

Nice emotional ply - but it still has nothing to do with legal firearms and
is still a social problem.

>
> Having a bunch of over weight, middle aged guys, toting fire arms to
> challenge these gangs is simply not going to happen.
>

Taking away legal firearms isn't going to fix this problem either. But -
the thought sure does feel good to you doesn't it?


> Thinking someone is going to cross your threshold after dark, armed to the
> teeth, and steal your wife's jewelry, your cash and who knows what else is
> again extremely remote.

I do agree that it is not as likely as the pro-gun fear mongers would
suggest, but it is far from remote. If they want the jewelry, they're not
going to get shot in my house just to protect the jewelry. There are other
types of threats that would be taken more seriously though. And... even
here in the rural NE, those threats are real to some degree. For those who
perceive that threat to be more real than I do, they have a legal right to
protect against it. What you miss is that those legal gun owners are not
killing those 10 year old kids, or even those 40 year old junkies, on a
daily basis.

>
> Before you actually kill another human being, you will probably pause for
> just a moment, a moment's delay which can cost you your life.

A very bad assumption. You're trying to make a case that is not supported
by the real world evidence of legal gun owners.

>
> The difference, if they get caught is some where around 10 years to life,
> if I remember.

You don't remember.

>
> These people aren't very bright, but they aren't that stupid either.
>
> Steal during the day, sleep at night.
>
> Just some thoughts.

Not really. They don't reflect reality. More like, just some wishful
thinking.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> There was a gun buyback in LA this past weekend. Turn in a gun and get
> gift cards for $50 or $100 for Aunt Lucy's derringer or Uncle Vito's
> semi-auto. Hundreds were turned in. They ran out of gift cards and
> still guns were being turned in. Seems like the bigger the local
> problem the more success you will have.

I wonder if there were people running around trying to buy old guns for $25
so they could sell them to the buy-back program and make a profit.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> "Why do you carry a .45?" "Because they don't make a .46,"
>

How many guns do you need? Just one more...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Charlie Self" wrote:

===============================
As population increases, violent crime will, too.
===============================

Just to put things in perspective, when I came to SoCal in 1990, the
state population was about 30 million.

Today it is past 38 million and still climbing with about half the
state population in SoCal, or 19 million.

19 million exceeds the population of probably all but about 5-6 of the
other states in the USA.

A lot of the land in SoCal is uninhabited, so the rest has a rather
high population density.

High population density and the influx of drug gangs from Mexico make
things a little dicey sometimes, especially in the inner city areas.

Lew

"Jack Stein" wrote:

> About 10 years ago one of them, Fox Chapel, a borough of the super
> rich, decided the deer population was getting too big and was eating
> all the expensive shrubs and flowers of the estate owners and was
> going to cull the herd, as they say.

As I remember, Fox Chapel along with Alcoma were a couple of pretty
decent golf courses.

Certainly no Oakmont, but definitely worth the drive from Cleveland a
couple of times each summer just to play there.

Lew

"Charlie Self" wrote:
==================================
If hunting with an AK47 wasyour point, you shouldn't have categorized
eastern states as only being able to use pump shotguns with a slug
load. Probably a .30-.30 is more popular, because most hunting here is
done in wooded areas.
======================================

I didn't.

Since a shotgun with a slug load is a shorter range weapon than a
rifle, and eastern states tend to have higher population densities
than western states, chances are pretty good more shotguns loaded with
slugs are used in eastern states.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It's been years, but from memory, think Ohio only allows shot gun
slugs for deer, and maybe even PA.

Both being states east of the Mississippi and both with relatively
high population densities.

Lew


Lew

"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>> "Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Upscale wrote:
>>>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> There was a gun buyback in LA this past weekend. Turn in a gun and
>>>>> get
>>>>> gift cards for $50 or $100 for Aunt Lucy's derringer or Uncle Vito's
>>>>> semi-auto. Hundreds were turned in. They ran out of gift cards and
>>>>> still guns were being turned in. Seems like the bigger the local
>>>>> problem the more success you will have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if there were people running around trying to buy old guns for
>>>> $25
>>>> so they could sell them to the buy-back program and make a profit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The police in Buffalo have had an annual gun buy-back for the last three
>>> or four years. The majority of the guns being turned in are sporting
>>> rifles that belonged to the deceased husbands of the widows turning them
>>> if. By what I have seen on TV in the quick pan of the camera I'd guess
>>> the rifles were worth $300 - $1000 and they turned them in for $50.
>>>
>>> IIRC, Ol' Keeter had a name of those that took advantage of "widow
>>> wimen" like that.
>>>
>>> Last year a guy was trying to buy selected firearms from the people
>>> waiting in line to turn them in. I believe he was willing to pay a fair
>>> price for the rifles. The police ran him off under threat of arrest.
>>
>>
>> Arrest for what?
> Loitering

Bring a lawyer ...

On Mon, 11 May 2009 21:52:29 -0600, Mark & Juanita wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):


>
> *You* on the other hand are where you are all the time. Do you know the
> response time for the police to arrive where you live? How much time is
> that for someone to do something? People should take some responsibility
> for their own defense. That may or may not mean having a firearm. It may
> mean having mace, pepper spray, a rapid response alarm system, etc.
>

"When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away"...

-BR

On May 11, 10:53=A0pm, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6a484212-58df-422a-8ab7-35ce38a5dfb0@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together with the cops,
> > and decided to buy any illegal guns that were brought in, no questions
> > asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated and heavily
> > publicized idea is to get illegal guns off the streets, thus reducing
> > crime.
>
> > It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back and pondered,
> > coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>
> > In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up article going on to
> > say that it was a great start, but ONLY a start.
>
> > That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>
> > Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
> > do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
> > acts are going to show up at these buyouts? About the only person
> > liable to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the person who
> > accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's derringer with a cracked
> > barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a $1 curio.
>
> > Too, in this state, about the only way to have an illegal gun is to be
> > a convicted felon with one in your possession.
>
> > I'm also thinking of starting a group called Liberals for Firearms.
> > That should frost a few noses on both sides of the aisle, including
> > the local butt wipe who write the paper implying that Obama supporters
> > who don't have patriotic bumper stickers are unpatriotic.
>
> > Semper fi!
>
> They're pay $100 bucks for turned in guns?! Do you have to prove it's
> illegal?

Why would you? Think about it? Most decent quality legal guns are
worth well over 100 bucks, as a starter.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
>> That said, I've got to say I only know a couple of people who carry
>> around here, and it's a 50-50 split between one guy who fears
>> everything, and the other who is a strutting horse's ass.
>
> It was related to the discourse that Charlie posted (as quoted above) or
> didn't you bother to read that part?

I did read it. I simply didn't exagerate it as you did, and continue to do
below. Again below, you demonstrate a keen ability to take a simple
statement and turn it into something that it was not, by apply new
definitions to a situation. People that employ this technique cannot be
argued with successfully because they continue to modify the grounds of the
discussion in attempt to create a new set of conditions that seek to support
their case. A clear sign of a bad position right from the beginning.

>
> In this case, we're talking about people of distinct temperments carrying
> firearms.

Your qualifications for such statements? Your expertise in personality
types and how to properly diagnose them?

> Would you feel entirely comfortable in the presence of somebody
> who fears everything waving his gun around?

Oh - my question above is answered. You take an unsupported claim by
someone making an almost off-hand comment in a usenet newsgroup, and from
that you conclude that this is a problem personality type, and in fact, can
forsee this person waving his gun around. This is getting beyond
reasonable. Fishing would be a good occupation for you - you are clearly a
master of the red-herring.

> Fear breeds mistakes and sudden
> rushes to judgement and actions.

Tell that to anyone that you believe is trained and trustworthy with a
gun...

> On the other end of the spectrum, the
> person strutting around and displaying bravado and carrying a firearm
> might
> use it in a situation where they're unskilled in assessing a situation,
> but
> think they should act anyway.

Don't let the statistics of private gun ownership and concealed carry
permits get in your way here...

> Both are two possible scenarios. It doesn't
> mean categorically those things are going to happen, it just means they're
> possibilities. Apparently you lack the capability to recognize that.

What I lack is your fear of things you rationalize in your head, that bear
no resemblance to the real world.

>
> I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, if a person is going
> to
> carry and possibly use a firearm, then there's the likelihood they might
> use
> it. And if they're going to use it, I'd much prefer that person be
> confident, better trained and better able to understand a situation. It
> makes for a better outcome. Your fearful person or your strutting horse's
> ass don't exactly exude those qualities.

They aren't my fearful or strutting person. I never introduced them into
the conversation. You are the one who has taken Charlie's words and
assigned definitions to what those words really mean. Worst case of course.
Now you are backpeddleing by trying to state what you believe is a more
moderate and understandable position. It makes it hard to entertain that
when throughout the discussion you have continually presented what you
considered to be worst case definitions to things you don't even really know
about. What do you know about these two people? Only what Charlie wrote.
Not a very solid basis for making a decision.

>
>> trying to denigrate.
>
> Go to hell. I didn't denigrate anyone. I applied simple logic to two
> personality types of people using a firearm in any given situation.

Logic was explicitly missing from everything you posted.

>
> You've apparently got some type of bee up your bonnet. I suggest you shove
> it somewhere else and shocked yourself into a little reality.
>

Let's see - I disagree with you and I have a bee up my bonnet? That is
quite characteristic of the way in which you interface in this group. Seen
it many times before.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> that a person is acting nervously. That was not part of the original
> description.

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
> That said, I've got to say I only know a couple of people who carry
> around here, and it's a 50-50 split between one guy who fears
> everything, and the other who is a strutting horse's ass.

It was related to the discourse that Charlie posted (as quoted above) or
didn't you bother to read that part?

In this case, we're talking about people of distinct temperments carrying
firearms. Would you feel entirely comfortable in the presence of somebody
who fears everything waving his gun around? Fear breeds mistakes and sudden
rushes to judgement and actions. On the other end of the spectrum, the
person strutting around and displaying bravado and carrying a firearm might
use it in a situation where they're unskilled in assessing a situation, but
think they should act anyway. Both are two possible scenarios. It doesn't
mean categorically those things are going to happen, it just means they're
possibilities. Apparently you lack the capability to recognize that.

I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, if a person is going to
carry and possibly use a firearm, then there's the likelihood they might use
it. And if they're going to use it, I'd much prefer that person be
confident, better trained and better able to understand a situation. It
makes for a better outcome. Your fearful person or your strutting horse's
ass don't exactly exude those qualities.

> trying to denigrate.

Go to hell. I didn't denigrate anyone. I applied simple logic to two
personality types of people using a firearm in any given situation.

You've apparently got some type of bee up your bonnet. I suggest you shove
it somewhere else and shocked yourself into a little reality.

On May 11, 5:19=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> > "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> [snip]
> >> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?
>
> > Interesting question... criminal on criminal mutual combats wouldn't
> > count but clearly there are myriad instances of firearm deployment, wit=
h
> > and without shooting, where it is clear that criminal behavior was bein=
g
> > stopped by an intended innocent victim. Of course there are gray areas
> > that are later judged under "reasonable man" assessments of the situati=
on.
>
> > In the end the "facts" surrounding a shooting turn out to be ambiguous
> > stimuli that are subject to cognitive manipulation. That is how law
> > enforcement is sometimes deemed wrong and where police and civilians
> > alike are judged to have committed justifiable homicide. Figuring out
> > which is which is not unlike the figuring out which of the myriad ways
> > to properly do hand cut dovetails is correct... ;~)
>
> > John
>
> Let me restate the problem: I am having lunch in a cafe and an armed
> person walks in. =A0This person is not a peace officer. =A0Do I put some
> money on the counter and leave? =A0Should I assume that this person is no=
t
> a miscreant? =A0How do I make this determination?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 j4

Is his firearm in hand or holstered? Concealed or on his hip? What
state are you eating lunch in?

I would rely on (& suggest you do so as well) my situational
awareness, my ability to "profile" and read body language.

btw...LOE's kill more of the "wrong" guys than do private
citizens.....its complicated but their shootings are justified as
"being per policy, the victim is still just as dead or
wounded. :)

visit the CDC & the FBI websites and immerse yourself in the data

the "success" of the recetn buy buybacks might be somewhat influenced
by the recession?

cheers
Bob

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Let's see - I disagree with you and I have a bee up my bonnet? That is
> quite characteristic of the way in which you interface in this group.
Seen
> it many times before.

Right! And this interface as you call it started with you coming after me.
Repeatedly, I've seen you launch your indignation based solely on your
ridiculous imaginary view of the world. You live in a fantasy world, one
where the truth and facts are so jumbled up that you can't perceive what is
real and what is fantasy.

Somewhere along the line, your perception of the world got really screwed
up. I'd suggest some psychiatric counselling for you but you're too far gone
to ever admit you have a problem. That's a common situation with people like
you who have such a warped view of the world that you just can't function
like a normal person. That makes you more dangerous than the fearful person
or the strutting horse's ass. It makes you unpredictable and unsociable
compared to normal folk. Guess you're lashing back because you obviously
experience people avoiding you on a daily basis.

I'd tell you to have a good day, but I know you're so caught up in your
righteousness that you'd never permit yourself enjoyment of any type.

On May 12, 6:43=A0am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> You need to check state game laws before making statements covering
> the entire eastern area. In Virginia, we have a breakdown in hunting
> seasons that goes something like this: muzzleloaders (they are still
> rifles, though); archery; rifle. There is no specific shotgun season,
> nor any need for one, though I think pumps with buckshot or slugs may
> be used. Turkeys are considered shotgun game.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Nowhere did you post an AK47 season which was my point.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> =A0I've got a hunting friend out in Nevada, who is also something of a
> gun nut. I can't recall him ever even owning a "saddle gun" .30-.30.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Definitely light weight for long range work
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Basically, it's difficult to jam people into categories when it comes
> to owning guns and using them, whether you're writing of hunting in
> general or in specific areas, or even about political party
> affiliations.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> No attempt to generalize but rather to point out that an AK47 is not a
> sport hunting weapon, but rather specifically designed to kill people.
>
> Lew

If hunting with an AK47 wasyour point, you shouldn't have categorized
eastern states as only being able to use pump shotguns with a slug
load. Probably a .30-.30 is more popular, because most hunting here is
done in wooded areas.

Speaking of using a fully automatic weapon for hunting is asinine,
anyway. You can't use an M16, nor can you use a Thompson, and I'd bet
even the Barret .50 is not legal for game, nor is a BAR, my personal
favorite for layiing down fire (which tends to show my age). That
really comes under the heading of SFW.

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Let me restate the problem: I am having lunch in a cafe and an armed
> person walks in. This person is not a peace officer. Do I put some money
> on the counter and leave? Should I assume that this person is not a
> miscreant? How do I make this determination?
> j4

Do miscreants usually simply walk in an act normal, or do they brandish
their weapon in a threatening way? You encounter more armed people than you
even realize in any given day, since most carry concealed and you don't even
know it. This is really kind of a ridiculous question.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> That said, I've got to say I only know a couple of people who carry
>> around here, and it's a 50-50 split between one guy who fears
>> everything, and the other who is a strutting horse's ass.
>
> Sounds like a tossup on which one is more dangerous.
>
>

So - they are more dangerous than... what? Because you or I may fear that a
person who "fears everything" (a characteristic that has only been
"established" by the claim of a third party), what real evidence is there
that this person is any more likely to act on that reported fear? So - what
really makes this person dangerous? I'm more concerned for people who make
judgments about others, absent any evidence at all, than I am about the
subjects of those judgments.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On May 12, 11:28=A0pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote innews:WMudnQlL3ZoOp5fXnZ2dnU=
[email protected]:
>
>
>
> > LD wrote:
>
> >> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]
> >> egroups.com... On May 11, 10:53 pm, "LD"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:[email protected]
> >>> legroups.com...
>
> >>> >A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together
> >>> >with the cops, and decided to buy any illegal guns that
> >>> >were brought in, no questions
> >>> > asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated
> >>> > and heavily publicized idea is to get illegal guns off
> >>> > the streets, thus reducing crime.
>
> >>> > It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back
> >>> > and pondered, coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>
> >>> > In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up
> >>> > article going on to say that it was a great start, but
> >>> > ONLY a start.
>
> >>> > That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>
> >>> > Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with
> >>> > theirs, in that I do not believe the people who use
> >>> > legal or illegal guns in criminal acts are going to
> >>> > show up at these buyouts? About the only person liable
> >>> > to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the
> >>> > person who accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's
> >>> > derringer with a cracked barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a
> >>> > $1 curio.
>
> >>> > Too, in this state, about the only way to have an
> >>> > illegal gun is to be a convicted felon with one in your
> >>> > possession.
>
> >>> > I'm also thinking of starting a group called Liberals
> >>> > for Firearms. That should frost a few noses on both
> >>> > sides of the aisle, including the local butt wipe who
> >>> > write the paper implying that Obama supporters who
> >>> > don't have patriotic bumper stickers are unpatriotic.
>
> >>> > Semper fi!
>
> >>> They're pay $100 bucks for turned in guns?! Do you have
> >>> to prove it's illegal?
>
> >> Why would you? Think about it? Most decent quality legal
> >> guns are worth well over 100 bucks, as a starter.
>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> --------------------
>
> >> There's a lot of junk that isn't.
>
> > =A0 Please provide a link pointing to any functional firearm
> > =A0 that is selling
> > for less than $100.
>
> DAGS-A quote from an article found in several places...
> "Bryco semiautomatics, which can be had in matte black or
> shiny nickel finish, retail for less than $100 new, and for as
> little as $55 used."
>
> Larry

It seems to be a quote from Time Magazine. Bryco went belly-up in '03,
after producing a line of Saturday night specials for many years. Cost
new was about $120, IIRC, for the .380.

Used, it should be available for about $60, so I guess it fits. But
Saturday night specials are about the only type of pistol that does.
Of course, that's probably what most of these people are hoping to
clear from the streets. Good luck to 'em on that is all I can say.
There are probably 50-60 million of them around, though most cost well
over 100 bucks these days. I owned several of these off-brand specials
over the years, but was mostly afraid to fire them for fear of losing
a finger or two. Someone gave me one a few years ago. I bent the
barrel in a vise, and smashed the cylinder with a sledge hammer and
tossed it.

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Right! And this interface as you call it started with you coming after me.
> Repeatedly, I've seen you launch your indignation based solely on your
> ridiculous imaginary view of the world. You live in a fantasy world, one
> where the truth and facts are so jumbled up that you can't perceive what
> is
> real and what is fantasy.

Oh please - grow some skin. Nobody came after you. It's no wonder you have
such bizzarre visions of what people might do - our thoughts about others
are usually a reflection of how we ourselves are.

>
> Somewhere along the line, your perception of the world got really screwed
> up. I'd suggest some psychiatric counselling for you but you're too far
> gone
> to ever admit you have a problem.

That's very interesting. You are the one who took simple statements to
unverified extremes and I am the one who needs counseling. Yawn - if you
say so. I'm not as paranoid as you, so I need help to get there?

> That's a common situation with people like
> you who have such a warped view of the world that you just can't function
> like a normal person.

So tell me - in what way do I not function as a normal person? Because I
don't jump to unfounded conclusions like you? Because I'm not an alarmist?
Because I don't try to assign characteristics to people I don't even know,
based on nothing more than my own fears? Yeah - I guess I'm not normal...

> That makes you more dangerous than the fearful person
> or the strutting horse's ass. It makes you unpredictable and unsociable
> compared to normal folk. Guess you're lashing back because you obviously
> experience people avoiding you on a daily basis.

Lashing would be a more appropriate description of your responses. You tend
to get quite offensive in your responses, and it is a characterization of
your responses in lots of discussions you've been involved in. This very
response by you fits that mold quite well. You most certainly have a well
refined ability to project your own patterns on those around you.

>
> I'd tell you to have a good day, but I know you're so caught up in your
> righteousness that you'd never permit yourself enjoyment of any type.
>
>

Nah - I'm far from righteous. I just don't believe in trashing other people
that I've never even met, and know nothing about, the way that you do. If
that bothers you, then so be it. I quite well enjoy life. Probably much
more than you since I don't busy myself with getting all distraught over
things that I suppose other people are doing wrong. It's such a shame that
throughout this thread it has consistently been you that has presented the
fear, uncertainty and doubt, yet you suggest that I must not enjoy life.
Projection - it does not serve you well.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
> do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
> acts are going to show up at these buyouts?

Yup, it's highly doubtful. The intention is that any gun turned in (even
aunt Lucy's derringer) is one more gun that won't turn up somewhere in the
hands of the criminal element. I can't comment on the efficacy of the
program, but the effort put into that particular instance where only one gun
was turned in might well have been better used somewhere else in gun crime
prevention.

Offhand, it sounds like an attempt to do *something* by some people who just
don't know what else to do about fighting gun crimes.

Up here in Toronto, Canada, there was a similar program recently (billed as
Pixels for Pistols) where a gun turned in garnered a new digital camera as
recompense. At the very least, the program is good for people who don't have
a decent disposal option for their guns. And, I'm sure a popular response
will be that the only guns turned in were likely to be from responsible
people, not the criminal element.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10073879-1.html

In the end after several months, I believe several hundred firearms were
turned in. I don't know if there was any resulting or recordable drop in
Toronto gun crimes as a result of the program. At a guess, it may have had
slightly more of an effect here where guns aren't as common as they are in
many US locales.

HeyBub wrote:
> David G. Nagel wrote:
>> Not all eastern states have a high population density. Pennsylvania
>> has vast areas of extremely low population. It also has several large
>> areas where deer hunting is permitted. My grandfather used to hunt
>> every year and got his bag each time. He used a pump action rifle
>> that used the Remington 35 caliber cartridge. Shot guns were used for
>> birds only.
>
> The politicians describe Pennsylvania as "Philidelphia in the east,
> Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between."
>
>
That about sums it up....

"LD" wrote:

> I lived 19 years in Toledo and ENLISTED in Cleveland.
>
> Next Moron!

And the relevance?

Lew

Charlie Self wrote:

> A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together with the cops,
> and decided to buy any illegal guns that were brought in, no questions
> asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated and heavily
> publicized idea is to get illegal guns off the streets, thus reducing
> crime.
>
> It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back and pondered,
> coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>
> In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up article going on to
> say that it was a great start, but ONLY a start.
>
> That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>
> Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
> do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
> acts are going to show up at these buyouts? About the only person
> liable to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the person who
> accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's derringer with a cracked
> barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a $1 curio.
>
> Too, in this state, about the only way to have an illegal gun is to be
> a convicted felon with one in your possession.
>
> I'm also thinking of starting a group called Liberals for Firearms.
> That should frost a few noses on both sides of the aisle, including
> the local butt wipe who write the paper implying that Obama supporters
> who don't have patriotic bumper stickers are unpatriotic.
>
> Semper fi!


The problem, and while it is not limited to those on the Left is very
prominent among them, is a failure to THINK. By think, I mean take a good
long look at what you are advocating and do it in the cold light of day.
Ask questions along the following lines:

1) What will be the REAL immediate impact of this piece of legislation or
social action?

2) What will be the long term impact of this piece of legislation or social
action?

3) What unintended consequences could arise from this action?

4) With what is proposed, could it actually make things worse and if
so "how?"



While there are more questions to be considered, you get the idea. The root
of the problem is two fold:

We live in a "sound bite" world and folks have, for the most part (this
applies acrose the board) forgotten how to critically assess.
Also, we have a large segment of the culture that denies the existance of
any form of "absolute." Therefore, all things become possible


For what its worth

Deb

"John Grossbohlin" wrote:

> Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that
> there are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each
> year and "bad guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot...

What is the purpose of law enforcement?

The NRA has been very successful throwing crap (AKA: Fear Mongering)
on the wall; however, the masses are beginning to see thru their crap.

Less and less of it is sticking on the wall these days.

Lew

"LD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
>
> Most of them these days are on METH and don't know what Planet they're on,
> never mind what the difference in jail time might be.

In some areas. In other areas, not at all the case.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Let's see - I disagree with you and I have a bee up my bonnet? That is
> quite characteristic of the way in which you interface in this group.
> Seen it many times before.

One other thing you might consider before you launch your retaliatory
strike. The gun nuts in the USA get froth at the mouth when there's any hint
of gun control, so change the venue. Let's substitute "car" in the place of
"gun". Cars are easily as lethal, kill and maim as many or more people than
guns and pretty well universally available.

Have you ever come across a nervous driver on the road? Dangerous as hell.
Have you ever experienced the road hog (strutting horse's ass) that thinks
they own the whole road? Just as dangerous. And even worse, have you ever
run afoul of someone in the midst of road rage?

Yup, you can say I'm making a generalization, but I have plenty of
experience driving and have come across all three type of individuals
mentioned above. Fortunately, a significant portion of the population
doesn't carry guns in Canada, so that's not something I've had to deal with.
However, you're going to tell me the comparison is not the same, but tell me
why and try at least a little to make it sound a logical will you?

Do you believe they all should have the right to drive? Do you think any of
them should be prevented from driving? Try controlling your rampant
delusions for a few minutes while you try to answer. I know it's beyond your
capabilities, but make the attempt anyway. Even nutbars like you are lucent
once in awhile.

And finally, when you've answered, try going through the text, replace "car"
with "gun" and then read it again and tell me it makes sense.

John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
[snip]
>> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?
>
> Interesting question... criminal on criminal mutual combats wouldn't
> count but clearly there are myriad instances of firearm deployment, with
> and without shooting, where it is clear that criminal behavior was being
> stopped by an intended innocent victim. Of course there are gray areas
> that are later judged under "reasonable man" assessments of the situation.
>
> In the end the "facts" surrounding a shooting turn out to be ambiguous
> stimuli that are subject to cognitive manipulation. That is how law
> enforcement is sometimes deemed wrong and where police and civilians
> alike are judged to have committed justifiable homicide. Figuring out
> which is which is not unlike the figuring out which of the myriad ways
> to properly do hand cut dovetails is correct... ;~)
>
> John
>
Let me restate the problem: I am having lunch in a cafe and an armed
person walks in. This person is not a peace officer. Do I put some
money on the counter and leave? Should I assume that this person is not
a miscreant? How do I make this determination?
j4

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> really makes this person dangerous? I'm more concerned for people who
make
> judgments about others, absent any evidence at all, than I am about the
> subjects of those judgments.

Maybe it's not one of your skills, but for many people it's really not all
that difficult to read body language and/or other actions to determine that
someone is acting nervously. Strutting around and displaying bravado is also
not all that difficult to recognize. In fact it's relatively easy to
recognize those traits. You learn them growing up. It's all part of our
social makeup. You prefer to call those skills absence of evidence, feel
free. But, then maybe you grew up in a cloistered boarding school or some
other institution, whereas most people didn't.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>
>> Few of the LEOs I know could meet that frequency standard. LEOs as a
>> class aren't necessarily into guns, it's just a tool of their trade.
>
> Guess that Californians should have some sense of pride in the
> training our law enforcement receives.
>
>> Along that line of thinking, a criminal justice professor associate
>> of mine refers to rank and file LEOs as "trade unionists" and the
>> non-union LEOs as "politicians." A bit crass perhaps, but upon
>> reflection it's a pretty good generalization.
>
> Ouch.
>
>> As research I went through about 100 hours of armed guard training.
>> I was looking at the organizational issues surrounding the
>> industry.... I consistently out shot and scored higher on the exams
>> than all the folks pursuing it as a vocation. Quite frankly, I'd be
>> afraid to hold that job if my skill level was a low as many of
>> them... but the shooting standards were the same as a typical LEO
>> was required to meet!
>
> The prison guards have a very strong union here in California.
>
> I don't know if they are required to have the same firearms training
> as street officers.
>
>> I do have grave concerns about denying people the means to defend
>> themselves and their families by "pricing them out of the market."
>
> That's the old "I can afford the house but not the maintenance" issue.
>
> On a broader perspective, why do they need the firearms in the first
> place.
>
>> This via expensive mandatory training, mandatory "technology," and
>> punitive licensing fees and processes.
>
> If you want to drive a car, you need a driver's license, which mayor
> may not require an investment in training.
>
>> The people most likely to need the defensive weapons are those least
>> likely to be able to afford the standards demanded by legislative
>> efforts. Victim disarmament is also class warfare...
>
> I don't necessarily accept the idea owning a firearm for protection is
> needed.
>
>> People like Schumer and Kennedy have armed bodyguards but the lower
>> income folks they represent apparently aren't worth having alive
>> based on the pols efforts to disarm the populace.
>
> Public officials unfortunately have a different set of needs from the
> general population.
>
> Other than assault rifles, I've seen no "efforts to disarm the
> populace", as you call it.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>
I was a corrections officer for about 3 1/2 years a while ago. During
the firearms training we received I was one of the best shots there. The
other's were ex military.
During shotgun training the instructor was moving to a new firing
station with one of the female trainees. The trainee had the shotgun at
port arms with the end of the barrel pointed right at the instructor's
head. The weapon was loaded and I think ready to fire but I am not sure.
By the way it had been over 20 years since I had last fired a rifle and
I was still one of the best in my class.

"John Grossbohlin" wrote:

> I used to teach college level courses inside maximum security
> prisons...

That must have been very interesting.

Certainly gives you a perspective, most of us, including me, don't
have.

> While many of the violent inmates were under the influence of drugs
> and/or alcohol during the commission of their crime(s), some were
> simply deranged. Reasoning works with neither and an armed civilian
> could very well have been spared their life or physical harm if
> they'd been armed... the inmates agreed with me on that! They don't
> want to be shot any more than "normal" people do... which is why
> simply displaying a firearm often ends the incident.

I don't have a problem with someone carrying a sidearm, IF, a big IF,
they have received proper training, which includes but is not limited
to practice range time, updated on a regular basis.

Here in California, every one in law enforcement, who carries a
sidearm, has to qualify on the range every 30 days.

I doubt most amateur gun owners could meet that standard.

(SFWIW, I got a lot of lead resource for a 20,000 lb ballast for a
sailboat I built from those range pits.)

(Today, even with the HazMat experience I had, couldn't do it. EPA has
really clamped down)

I sure most other states have similar training programs in place.

It's the "fruit cakes" that concern me, not the pros.

Lew

"Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>There was a gun buyback in LA this past weekend. Turn in a gun and get
>>>gift cards for $50 or $100 for Aunt Lucy's derringer or Uncle Vito's
>>>semi-auto. Hundreds were turned in. They ran out of gift cards and
>>>still guns were being turned in. Seems like the bigger the local
>>>problem the more success you will have.
>>
>>
>> I wonder if there were people running around trying to buy old guns for
>> $25
>> so they could sell them to the buy-back program and make a profit.
>>
>>
>
> The police in Buffalo have had an annual gun buy-back for the last three
> or four years. The majority of the guns being turned in are sporting
> rifles that belonged to the deceased husbands of the widows turning them
> if. By what I have seen on TV in the quick pan of the camera I'd guess
> the rifles were worth $300 - $1000 and they turned them in for $50.
>
> IIRC, Ol' Keeter had a name of those that took advantage of "widow wimen"
> like that.
>
> Last year a guy was trying to buy selected firearms from the people
> waiting in line to turn them in. I believe he was willing to pay a fair
> price for the rifles. The police ran him off under threat of arrest.


Arrest for what?

"David G. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> David G. Nagel wrote:
>>

> I don't currently hunt myself but I have in years gone past.
>
> My favorite story about hunting is the State of New Jersey outlawed deer
> hunting in the '50s. According to the story they almost lost the whole
> herd due to over population and disease.
>
> Hunting is essential for the maintainance of a health herd. When old Dan
> Boone was roaming the countryside there were large packs of predators that
> culled the herd of weak and unfit animals. They are gone leaving man to
> perform that act. Yes most of the deer killed are not sick or unfit but
> the mere act of reducing the male deer population keeps the size of the
> herd down to manageable proportions and the number of sick and unfit
> animals down.

We need more predators too. I wish the wolves and mountain lions would
return to the Catskills to encourage the city and other downstate folks to
stay down there. The black bears and coyotes just aren't getting the job
done. To get this semi-on-topic, those city folks don't want any trees cut
down either... tough to woodwork without wood. ;~)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "fftt" wrote:
> ================================
> Lew-
>
> From your posts I'm getting the impression that you;re a gun
> prohibitionist or an advocate of major gun restrictions.
> ====================================
>
> Absolutely not true.
>
> Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi.
>
> If you want to hunt deer east of the Mississippi, it will probably be
> with a plugged pump shotgun and slugs.
>
> West of the Mississippi, probably a 30-30 saddle gun for deer, a 30-06
> for larger game.
>
> In any event, it won't be an AK47.
>
> Have a collection of long guns, was a crack marksman in my youth,
> which allowed me to put some meat on the table; however, haven't
> hunted in years.
>
> Returned to where I grew up last summer, most of the places I hunted
> are now sub-divisions.
>
> If I were to have a hand gun, it would be a 10 gauge, double barrel
> shot gun, loaded with 00 buckshot and with stock and barrels shortened
> to the point they would be illegal.
>
> My first and only shot would be directly at the genitals.
>
> Hopefully wouldn't kill him, but his desire to live would be
> significantly diminished.
>

Nevertheless, you display the attitude of a gun grabber:

"Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi."

There are so many things wrong with this admission, one hardly knows where
to begin:

1. "NEED" is not now nor has it ever been the issue. "WANT" is the only
determinate.
2. Hunting is only one - and probably a minority - reason for owning a gun.
Other reasons include: Self defense, investment, collecting, profit,
historical education, re-enactment activities, sporting marksmanship, and,
of course, because someone just wants one.
3. I own both an AK47 and an Uzi. I, like you, last went hunting forty years
ago.

I hope you'll permit a modest correction: A double-barrel 10-gauge is not a
handgun. For most people, it's not even a shoulder gun. As a personal
defense weapon, it has several disadvantages.

* You're limited to two shots (though there are 18 pellets per shell) - a
handgun has upwards of 17 shots. Tactical reload times are 10 seconds vs.
two.
* A shotgun is unwieldy in a confined space, like a car.
* You can't easily tuck it in your belt.
* You can't easily conceal it when visiting your minister or mother-in-law
(a teaching moment: the minimum lengths for a shotgun are 18" barrel and 26"
overall).

"HeyBub" wrote:
====================================
> I hope you'll permit a modest correction: A double-barrel 10-gauge
> is not a handgun. For most people, it's not even a shoulder gun.

When I got done with it, it would be.

> As a personal defense weapon, it has several disadvantages.

> * You're limited to two shots (though there are 18 pellets per
> shell)

That's enough to castrate the target.

>- a handgun has upwards of 17 shots. Tactical reload times are 10
>seconds vs. two.

Don't plan on missing so no need to reload.

Reminds me of my father telling me how he learned to shoot as a young
kid in southern Indiana.

As a 6 year old, was given a single shot .22 and a single cartridge,
then told to go shoot breakfast.

Didn't go hungry more than a couple of times before he learned how to
shoot.

SFWIW, he could bark a squirrel at 50 ft well into his 40's when it
became bifocal time and he lost it.

> * A shotgun is unwieldy in a confined space, like a car.

Who is talking about a shotgun or a car?

> * You can't easily tuck it in your belt.

No desire but don't bet me.

> * You can't easily conceal it when visiting your minister or
> mother-in-law

MIL is dead, don't have a person of the cloth to visit.

Have no plans to conceal.

Matter of fact, want everybody within 50 miles that I have it, have an
absolutely nasty personality, and would just as soon shoot as breathe,
especially if you enter my bed room.

> (a teaching moment: the minimum lengths for a shotgun are 18" barrel
> and 26" overall).

Which is why I called it illegal.

Try less than 8"-9" complete with both stock and barrels.

Strictly illegal, but a hell of a weapon to have in a bar fight.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>
>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:4a265483-52a0-4f7d-a153-0e1ac985d6a1@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 11, 10:53 pm, "LD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:6a484212-58df-422a-8ab7-35ce38a5dfb0@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together with the cops,
>>> > and decided to buy any illegal guns that were brought in, no questions
>>> > asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated and heavily
>>> > publicized idea is to get illegal guns off the streets, thus reducing
>>> > crime.
>>>
>>> > It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back and pondered,
>>> > coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>>>
>>> > In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up article going on to
>>> > say that it was a great start, but ONLY a start.
>>>
>>> > That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>>>
>>> > Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
>>> > do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
>>> > acts are going to show up at these buyouts? About the only person
>>> > liable to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the person who
>>> > accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's derringer with a cracked
>>> > barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a $1 curio.
>>>
>>> > Too, in this state, about the only way to have an illegal gun is to be
>>> > a convicted felon with one in your possession.
>>>
>>> > I'm also thinking of starting a group called Liberals for Firearms.
>>> > That should frost a few noses on both sides of the aisle, including
>>> > the local butt wipe who write the paper implying that Obama supporters
>>> > who don't have patriotic bumper stickers are unpatriotic.
>>>
>>> > Semper fi!
>>>
>>> They're pay $100 bucks for turned in guns?! Do you have to prove it's
>>> illegal?
>>
>> Why would you? Think about it? Most decent quality legal guns are
>> worth well over 100 bucks, as a starter.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> There's a lot of junk that isn't.
>
>
> Please provide a link pointing to any functional firearm that is selling
> for less than $100

Did anyone say it had to be functional?

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LD wrote:
>>
>>
>> They're pay $100 bucks for turned in guns?! Do you have to prove it's
>> illegal?
>
> Usually these events are "no questions asked."
>
> Those who run these programs won't tell you, but I often wonder when the
> Buffalo cops run the serial numbers the next day how many guns they find
> that were last seen on the hip of an Arizona State Trooper found shot to
> death on the side of the road.
>
> Further, I have never heard of a stolen weapon being turned in during one
> of these "buy back" schemes that was returned to its rightful owner.
>

Supposedly the guns are destroyed, right?

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lr%[email protected]...
> "LD" wrote:
>
>> But then, almost Anywhere is worth the drive from Cleveland ...
>
> Ah yes, again we hear from the voice of the ill informed.
>
> Lew
>
>

I lived 19 years in Toledo and ENLISTED in Cleveland.

Next Moron!

"Charlie Self" wrote:

>A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together with the
>cops,
> and decided to buy any illegal guns that were brought in, no
> questions
> asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated and heavily
> publicized idea is to get illegal guns off the streets, thus
> reducing
> crime.
>
> It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back and pondered,
> coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>
> In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up article going on to
> say that it was a great start, but ONLY a start.
>
> That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>
> Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
> do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
> acts are going to show up at these buyouts? About the only person
> liable to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the person who
> accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's derringer with a
> cracked
> barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a $1 curio.
>
> Too, in this state, about the only way to have an illegal gun is to
> be
> a convicted felon with one in your possession.
>
> I'm also thinking of starting a group called Liberals for Firearms.
> That should frost a few noses on both sides of the aisle, including
> the local butt wipe who write the paper implying that Obama
> supporters
> who don't have patriotic bumper stickers are unpatriotic.
>
> Semper fi!

Location, location, location.

This past weekend, a buy out program was conducted here in L/A.

A $100 food card was given in exchange for a firearm.

There were 20 drop off stations.

Simply drive buy, have a cop remove the weapon from vehicle, get card,
and drive away, no questions asked.

The program was so successful, they ran out of cards early in the day.

Lots of "Saturday Night Specials" were collected.

Another collection day is planned.

On average, would guestimate that 3-5 people are shot and killed every
day in SoCal.

People are getting tired of the violence.

Appears to be an entirely different mentality in Virginia.

Lew

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6a484212-58df-422a-8ab7-35ce38a5dfb0@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>A week or so ago, a few Lynchburg churches got together with the cops,
> and decided to buy any illegal guns that were brought in, no questions
> asked, amnesty offered and all that truck. The stated and heavily
> publicized idea is to get illegal guns off the streets, thus reducing
> crime.
>
> It was well publicized and praised, while I sat back and pondered,
> coming to the conclusion, "WTF?"
>
> In the end, they got one gun, with the follow-up article going on to
> say that it was a great start, but ONLY a start.
>
> That brought another question to mind: "WTF?"
>
> Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
> do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
> acts are going to show up at these buyouts? About the only person
> liable to turn in a weapon at one of these affairs is the person who
> accidentally urns up great-great-aunt Lucy's derringer with a cracked
> barrel, IMO. Grab $100 for a $1 curio.

Snip


Sorta goes with the mentality of implementing the Marijuana Stamp.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>
>> That assumes that they are there to do something... if they are fine. If
>> they aren't what are you going to do? It's not about being judge, jury
>> and executioner it's about stopping whatever behaviors led to the weapon
>> deployment in the first place. If mere presence doesn't command
>> compliance then shooting may be the only way to stop the behavior.
>
> Here in L/A, the gun issue revolves around drugs and the gang wars.
>
> Almost every night there is a report on the evening news of a drive by
> shooting in broad daylight, often with heart breaking results.
>
> Not uncommon for an innocent kid, often under the age of 10, to be gunned
> down in the cross walk as a gang car drives down the street shooting
> anything in sight in an attempt to capture turf.
>
> Having a bunch of over weight, middle aged guys, toting fire arms to
> challenge these gangs is simply not going to happen.
>
> Thinking someone is going to cross your threshold after dark, armed to the
> teeth, and steal your wife's jewelry, your cash and who knows what else is
> again extremely remote.
>
> Even if they do, the probability an individual will shoot first, think
> later is al;so remote.
>
> Before you actually kill another human being, you will probably pause for
> just a moment, a moment's delay which can cost you your life.
>
> These thugs don't have a problem invading your house during the day when
> the house is unoccupied; however, breaking into an occupied house after
> dark is a totally different matter.
>
> The difference, if they get caught is some where around 10 years to life,
> if I remember.
>
> These people aren't very bright, but they aren't that stupid either.
>
> Steal during the day, sleep at night.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>


Most of them these days are on METH and don't know what Planet they're on,
never mind what the difference in jail time might be.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that there
>> are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each year and "bad
>> guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot...
>
> What is the purpose of law enforcement?

That assumes that they are there to do something... if they are fine. If
they aren't what are you going to do? It's not about being judge, jury and
executioner it's about stopping whatever behaviors led to the weapon
deployment in the first place. If mere presence doesn't command compliance
then shooting may be the only way to stop the behavior. The research
literature is full of support for this notion... and the NRA doesn't own the
tier one, peer reviewed, academic journals in which it appears.

We'll solve nothing here... and we're WAY OT! Read a couple hundred journal
articles and then make an informed opinion. Folks like Gary Kleck went in
with a bias and their intellectual integrity led them to change their
opinion. Dig up a copy of Gary Kleck's Point Blank for a good start on a
literature review--it's got lots of citations. Dig up the stuff from Art
Kellermann, et al., in the medical literature too... there is a marked
difference between the two schools that becomes clear after you read a lot
of articles. What say you?

Me... tonight I'm thinking about teaching another hand cut dovetail class as
I've received a number of requested recently... Helping lay the groundwork
to get Heller to the USSC pretty much cured me of arguing about gun
regulation! LOL

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> "John Grossbohlin" wrote:
>>
>>> Few of the LEOs I know could meet that frequency standard. LEOs as a
>>> class aren't necessarily into guns, it's just a tool of their trade.
>> Guess that Californians should have some sense of pride in the
>> training our law enforcement receives.
>>
>>> Along that line of thinking, a criminal justice professor associate
>>> of mine refers to rank and file LEOs as "trade unionists" and the
>>> non-union LEOs as "politicians." A bit crass perhaps, but upon
>>> reflection it's a pretty good generalization.
>> Ouch.
>>
> ... snip
>> Public officials unfortunately have a different set of needs from the
>> general population.
>>
>> Other than assault rifles, I've seen no "efforts to disarm the
>> populace", as you call it.
>>
>
> You do realize that the definition of "assault rifles" is merely code
> for "scary-looking guns"? The so-called assault rifles are merely cosmetic
> elements applied to semi-automatic rifles. Calling them "assault rifles"
> makes gullible people think that the government is banning machine guns
> which have already been heavily restricted since the 1930's.
>
>> Lew
>
Many, many years ago the Pope wrote a note to the King of England
complaining about the absolutely terrible assault weapons that were in
the hands of ordinary people. His position was that they should be
confiscated and destroyed.

The weapon: The English Long Bow. The time: The time of Robin Hood (even
though he may be fictional)

An Assault Weapon is merely the biggest baddest weapon of the era.
BTW: The WW II German automatic rifle was the only rifle called an
Assault Rifle and that name was bestowed by Adolph Hitler when he
finally saw one in action.

Upscale wrote:
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>There was a gun buyback in LA this past weekend. Turn in a gun and get
>>gift cards for $50 or $100 for Aunt Lucy's derringer or Uncle Vito's
>>semi-auto. Hundreds were turned in. They ran out of gift cards and
>>still guns were being turned in. Seems like the bigger the local
>>problem the more success you will have.
>
>
> I wonder if there were people running around trying to buy old guns for $25
> so they could sell them to the buy-back program and make a profit.
>
>

The police in Buffalo have had an annual gun buy-back for the last three
or four years. The majority of the guns being turned in are sporting
rifles that belonged to the deceased husbands of the widows turning them
if. By what I have seen on TV in the quick pan of the camera I'd guess
the rifles were worth $300 - $1000 and they turned them in for $50.

IIRC, Ol' Keeter had a name of those that took advantage of "widow
wimen" like that.

Last year a guy was trying to buy selected firearms from the people
waiting in line to turn them in. I believe he was willing to pay a fair
price for the rifles. The police ran him off under threat of arrest.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "HeyBub" wrote:
>>
>>> First, what evidence is there that these people didn't need killin'?
>>> Secondly, might it not be the case that considerably MORE people need
>>> to be shot.
>>
>> Get some help, you need it.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that
> there are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each year
> and "bad guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot... Others who
> are involved in gun regulation research and politics have written
> similar things. It's not that the defensive gun users want to shoot
> anybody... the idea is to stop whatever action led the defensive gun
> user to shoot. As stated by the original poster it was a rather
> inflammatory statement. Worded as someone like Gary Kleck, Dave Kopel,
> Gary Mauser, or Don Kates might say it it would look much more reasonable.
>
> John
How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?

David G. Nagel wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> David G. Nagel wrote:
>>> Not all eastern states have a high population density. Pennsylvania
>>> has vast areas of extremely low population. It also has several large
>>> areas where deer hunting is permitted. My grandfather used to hunt
>>> every year and got his bag each time. He used a pump action rifle
>>> that used the Remington 35 caliber cartridge. Shot guns were used for
>>> birds only.
>>
>> The politicians describe Pennsylvania as "Philidelphia in the east,
>> Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in between."
>>
>>
> That about sums it up....

Which one is the part that keeps electing Murtha? Despite him showing his
disdain for them by calling them a bunch of racists?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" wrote:
>>>
>>>> First, what evidence is there that these people didn't need killin'?
>>>> Secondly, might it not be the case that considerably MORE people need
>>>> to be shot.
>>>
>>> Get some help, you need it.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Perhaps he didn't articulate that well... I think his point is that there
>> are a significant number of defensive firearms usages each year and "bad
>> guys" that need to be stopped end up being shot... Others who are
>> involved in gun regulation research and politics have written similar
>> things. It's not that the defensive gun users want to shoot anybody...
>> the idea is to stop whatever action led the defensive gun user to shoot.
>> As stated by the original poster it was a rather inflammatory statement.
>> Worded as someone like Gary Kleck, Dave Kopel, Gary Mauser, or Don Kates
>> might say it it would look much more reasonable.
>>
>> John
> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?

Interesting question... criminal on criminal mutual combats wouldn't count
but clearly there are myriad instances of firearm deployment, with and
without shooting, where it is clear that criminal behavior was being stopped
by an intended innocent victim. Of course there are gray areas that are
later judged under "reasonable man" assessments of the situation.

In the end the "facts" surrounding a shooting turn out to be ambiguous
stimuli that are subject to cognitive manipulation. That is how law
enforcement is sometimes deemed wrong and where police and civilians alike
are judged to have committed justifiable homicide. Figuring out which is
which is not unlike the figuring out which of the myriad ways to properly do
hand cut dovetails is correct... ;~)

John

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On a broader perspective, why do they need the firearms in the first
> place.

I agree. I also wonder why we need a free press, the right to peaceably
assemble, due process, protection from unwarranted search and seizure....

> If you want to drive a car, you need a driver's license, which mayor may
> not require an investment in training.

I might have missed it, but I didn't see the right to a driver's license in
the US Constitution.

>> The people most likely to need the defensive weapons are those least
>> likely to be able to afford the standards demanded by legislative
>> efforts. Victim disarmament is also class warfare...
>
> I don't necessarily accept the idea owning a firearm for protection is
> needed.

And I don't necessarily accept the idea of the government being prohibited
from quartering troops during a time of peace.

>> People like Schumer and Kennedy have armed bodyguards but the lower
>> income folks they represent apparently aren't worth having alive based on
>> the pols efforts to disarm the populace.
>
> Public officials unfortunately have a different set of needs from the
> general population.
>
> Other than assault rifles, I've seen no "efforts to disarm the populace",
> as you call it.

What do you call the various handgun bans around the country?

> Lew

todd

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>
>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
> [snip]
>>> How does one know which are the "defensive gun users"?
>>
>> Interesting question... criminal on criminal mutual combats wouldn't
>> count but clearly there are myriad instances of firearm deployment, with
>> and without shooting, where it is clear that criminal behavior was being
>> stopped by an intended innocent victim. Of course there are gray areas
>> that are later judged under "reasonable man" assessments of the
>> situation.
>>
>> In the end the "facts" surrounding a shooting turn out to be ambiguous
>> stimuli that are subject to cognitive manipulation. That is how law
>> enforcement is sometimes deemed wrong and where police and civilians
>> alike are judged to have committed justifiable homicide. Figuring out
>> which is which is not unlike the figuring out which of the myriad ways to
>> properly do hand cut dovetails is correct... ;~)
>>
>> John
>>
> Let me restate the problem: I am having lunch in a cafe and an armed
> person walks in. This person is not a peace officer. Do I put some money
> on the counter and leave? Should I assume that this person is not a
> miscreant? How do I make this determination?
> j4

By his behaviors... Also, it wouldn't be valid to assume no uniform means
non-LEO. Could be plain clothes or off-duty. The press has reported on
several shootings recently that involved off duty and retired LEOs who were
being victimized. The perps happened to pick the wrong victims!

Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> As research I went through about 100 hours of armed guard training.
>> I was looking at the organizational issues surrounding the
>> industry.... I consistently out shot and scored higher on the exams
>> than all the folks pursuing it as a vocation. Quite frankly, I'd be
>> afraid to hold that job if my skill level was a low as many of
>> them... but the shooting standards were the same as a typical LEO
>> was required to meet!
>
> The prison guards have a very strong union here in California.
>
> I don't know if they are required to have the same firearms training
> as street officers.
>
>> I do have grave concerns about denying people the means to defend
>> themselves and their families by "pricing them out of the market."
>
> That's the old "I can afford the house but not the maintenance" issue.
>
> On a broader perspective, why do they need the firearms in the first
> place.
>
>> This via expensive mandatory training, mandatory "technology," and
>> punitive licensing fees and processes.
>
> If you want to drive a car, you need a driver's license, which mayor
> may not require an investment in training.
>
>> The people most likely to need the defensive weapons are those least
>> likely to be able to afford the standards demanded by legislative
>> efforts. Victim disarmament is also class warfare...
>
> I don't necessarily accept the idea owning a firearm for protection is
> needed.
>
>> People like Schumer and Kennedy have armed bodyguards but the lower
>> income folks they represent apparently aren't worth having alive
>> based on the pols efforts to disarm the populace.
>
> Public officials unfortunately have a different set of needs from the
> general population.
>
> Other than assault rifles, I've seen no "efforts to disarm the
> populace", as you call it.
>

Well, they did it in New York City with the Sullivan Law.

But your statement "other than assault rifles..." is way too similar to the
mayor of D.C. bragging "If you don't count the homicides, D.C. is a great
place to live."

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Is there something wrong with my thinking, or with theirs, in that I
>> do not believe the people who use legal or illegal guns in criminal
>> acts are going to show up at these buyouts?
>
> Yup, it's highly doubtful. The intention is that any gun turned in (even
> aunt Lucy's derringer) is one more gun that won't turn up somewhere in the
> hands of the criminal element. I can't comment on the efficacy of the
> program, but the effort put into that particular instance where only one
> gun
> was turned in might well have been better used somewhere else in gun crime
> prevention.
>
> Offhand, it sounds like an attempt to do *something* by some people who
> just
> don't know what else to do about fighting gun crimes.
>
> Up here in Toronto, Canada, there was a similar program recently (billed
> as
> Pixels for Pistols) where a gun turned in garnered a new digital camera as
> recompense. At the very least, the program is good for people who don't
> have
> a decent disposal option for their guns. And, I'm sure a popular response
> will be that the only guns turned in were likely to be from responsible
> people, not the criminal element.
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10073879-1.html
>
> In the end after several months, I believe several hundred firearms were
> turned in. I don't know if there was any resulting or recordable drop in
> Toronto gun crimes as a result of the program. At a guess, it may have had
> slightly more of an effect here where guns aren't as common as they are in
> many US locales.
>
>

In Some locales here you can probably find one in the 7-11 dumpster,
should you forget yours while on the way to rob the place. :()

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "LD" wrote:
>
>> I lived 19 years in Toledo and ENLISTED in Cleveland.
>>
>> Next Moron!
>
> And the relevance?
>
> Lew
>
>

You snipped the relevance.

Nova wrote:
>
> The police in Buffalo have had an annual gun buy-back for the last
> three or four years. The majority of the guns being turned in are
> sporting rifles that belonged to the deceased husbands of the widows
> turning them if. By what I have seen on TV in the quick pan of the
> camera I'd guess the rifles were worth $300 - $1000 and they turned
> them in for $50.
> IIRC, Ol' Keeter had a name of those that took advantage of "widow
> wimen" like that.
>
> Last year a guy was trying to buy selected firearms from the people
> waiting in line to turn them in. I believe he was willing to pay a
> fair price for the rifles. The police ran him off under threat of
> arrest.

Arrest for what - it's more than an academic interest. I'll sure try what he
attempted if there's ever a buy-back program in my neighborhood.

'Course the laws in Texas are way different than New York. One person hands
over money, the other hands over the gun(s). The state is not involved in
any way. No permits, no registration, no restrictions on private sales
(other than you cannot KNOWINGLY sell to a person not legally entitled to
own a weapon: felon, child, mentally deranged, alien, hippie, etc.).

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote:
>
> ==================================
> You need to check state game laws before making statements covering
> the entire eastern area. In Virginia, we have a breakdown in hunting
> seasons that goes something like this: muzzleloaders (they are still
> rifles, though); archery; rifle. There is no specific shotgun season,
> nor any need for one, though I think pumps with buckshot or slugs may
> be used. Turkeys are considered shotgun game.
> ==================================
> Nowhere did you post an AK47 season which was my point.
> ====================================
> I've got a hunting friend out in Nevada, who is also something of a
> gun nut. I can't recall him ever even owning a "saddle gun" .30-.30.
> =================================
> Definitely light weight for long range work
>
> ===================================
> Basically, it's difficult to jam people into categories when it comes
> to owning guns and using them, whether you're writing of hunting in
> general or in specific areas, or even about political party
> affiliations.
> ===================================
> No attempt to generalize but rather to point out that an AK47 is not a
> sport hunting weapon, but rather specifically designed to kill people.
>
> Lew
>
>
The AK-47 and it's replacement the AK-74 are classified as Assault
Rifles and are automatic loaders with selectable full or semi automatic
fire. They are also extremely inaccurate weapons.

"fftt" wrote:
================================
Lew-

From your posts I'm getting the impression that you;re a gun
prohibitionist or an advocate of major gun restrictions.
====================================

Absolutely not true.

Some how, don't think you need an AK47 or an ooze<s/p> to hunt Bambi.

If you want to hunt deer east of the Mississippi, it will probably be
with a plugged pump shotgun and slugs.

West of the Mississippi, probably a 30-30 saddle gun for deer, a 30-06
for larger game.

In any event, it won't be an AK47.

Have a collection of long guns, was a crack marksman in my youth,
which allowed me to put some meat on the table; however, haven't
hunted in years.

Returned to where I grew up last summer, most of the places I hunted
are now sub-divisions.

If I were to have a hand gun, it would be a 10 gauge, double barrel
shot gun, loaded with 00 buckshot and with stock and barrels shortened
to the point they would be illegal.

My first and only shot would be directly at the genitals.

Hopefully wouldn't kill him, but his desire to live would be
significantly diminished.

Lew

LD wrote:

> "Nova" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> There was a gun buyback in LA this past weekend. Turn in a gun and get
>>>> gift cards for $50 or $100 for Aunt Lucy's derringer or Uncle Vito's
>>>> semi-auto. Hundreds were turned in. They ran out of gift cards and
>>>> still guns were being turned in. Seems like the bigger the local
>>>> problem the more success you will have.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if there were people running around trying to buy old guns
>>> for $25
>>> so they could sell them to the buy-back program and make a profit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The police in Buffalo have had an annual gun buy-back for the last
>> three or four years. The majority of the guns being turned in are
>> sporting rifles that belonged to the deceased husbands of the widows
>> turning them if. By what I have seen on TV in the quick pan of the
>> camera I'd guess the rifles were worth $300 - $1000 and they turned
>> them in for $50.
>>
>> IIRC, Ol' Keeter had a name of those that took advantage of "widow
>> wimen" like that.
>>
>> Last year a guy was trying to buy selected firearms from the people
>> waiting in line to turn them in. I believe he was willing to pay a
>> fair price for the rifles. The police ran him off under threat of
>> arrest.
>
>
>
> Arrest for what?

For screwing up the intent of their program. I'm sure they could have
come up with some reason. Would it have held up in court? Probably not
btu the guy would have been prevented from buying any of the firearms,
would have spent some time in jail, most likely incurred the expense of
a lawyer and spent a day in court The arresting officer would have
gotten overtime for his court appearance.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]