a gun to defend oneself

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

Pan Ohco said:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Quoted message said:

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

mikus

So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Pan Ohco <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs <[email hidden]>
::: wrote:
:::
::::: The obsession is not with guns dear.
::::: It's with being able to defend yourself.
:::
:::: There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
:::: will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
:::: __faster__ on the draw ?
:::
:::: Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
:::: But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
:::: who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?
:::
:::: mikus
:::
::: So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?
::
:: Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
:: pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
:: often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
:: against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

You see this often? Explain....

On Oct 11, 2:04 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Pan Ohco said:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The obsession is not with guns dear.
> It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mikus

Quoted message said:

So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

What a lot of folks see is the home invader holding their very own
firearm
on them.

What others see is a criminal who brought the gun as a threat,
threatened
and forced to use it.

Still others see other "externalities" to the legal gun - legal gun
owner
transaction.

I recall, when I lived in Missouri, a referendum in favor of concealed
carry
was defeated by the voters. The same congress then passed the law
anyway. Representative democracy my ass.

Quoted message said:

Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

What we seem to see most often in Texas is people, homeowners, shooting
intruders. Unfortunately, most of the intruders have been shot in the back
by the homeowner chasing them down the street. One guy saw a teenager
running from his pickup truck and the window on the truck broken, so he
chased the teen and shot him in the back. Another involved somebody waking
up and startling a robber and the robber ran away. However, the homeowner
chased him down the middle of the street, shooting wildly until he hit the
guy.

So, what do we have? Some idiots thinking "Hey, it's my chance to shoot
someone and get off scot-free!"
There was controversy over these in-the-back shootings, so the legislature
fixed it from a "Protecting yourself and property from direct threat to
okay-you-can-shoot-anyone-on-your-property" situation.

Pat in TX

Quoted message said:

Mikus Grinbergs said:

Quoted message said:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
__faster__ on the draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

i was threatened the other day and if i had a gun i would have felt
safer

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on the
draw ?

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee, lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

em said:

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The obsession is not with guns dear.
It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on the
draw ?

Quoted message said:

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee, lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

More like this:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same thing, really.

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

em said:

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> The obsession is not with guns dear.
> It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will
be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on
the
draw ?

Quoted message said:

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But
if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

More like this:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same thing, really.

You therefore shouldn't carry a gun, but also don't try to abridge my right
to do so.

Idiot.

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

em said:

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> The obsession is not with guns dear.
> It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will
be
able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on
the
draw ?

Quoted message said:

Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But
if
the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

mikus

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

More like this:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

It's the same thing, really.

Somebody tried to break into my parent's house once when my mom was alone.
She held up the gun, the guy ran away. Good for him (maybe), she woulda shot
him if he didn't run.

I would have no problem shooting some crack head off the street who broke
into my home if I thought me or the kids were in danger.

What about you?

Then again, I don't want to argue gun control here on this group. There's
too much on-topic political [censored] to worry about, one example was pointed
out by Jackie.

Mike

Hollywood said:

What a lot of folks see is the home invader holding their very own
firearm
on them.

What others see is a criminal who brought the gun as a threat,
threatened
and forced to use it.

Still others see other "externalities" to the legal gun - legal gun
owner
transaction.

I see someone responding to offtopic posts crossposted here for no good
reason.

Back on topic: guns are low-carb.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

em said:

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

Cocoa Puffs will be approved food. We'll all live much longer and
healthier eating this "whole grain."

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs.html

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Jackie Patti said:

Hollywood said:

What a lot of folks see is the home invader holding their very own
firearm
on them.

Quoted message said:

What others see is a criminal who brought the gun as a threat,
threatened
and forced to use it.

Quoted message said:

Still others see other "externalities" to the legal gun - legal gun
owner
transaction.

I see someone responding to offtopic posts crossposted here for no good
reason.

Back on topic: guns are low-carb.

You, of course, are welcome to eat your gun.

jcderkoeing said:

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

em said:

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The obsession is not with guns dear.
>> It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will
> be
> able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on
> the
> draw ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But
> if
> the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
> who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> mikus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

Quoted message said:

More like this:

Quoted message said:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

Quoted message said:

It's the same thing, really.

You therefore shouldn't carry a gun, but also don't try to abridge my right
to do so.

Idiot.

You're entitled to own your gun. You should also be entitled to full
prosecution
for indifference to human life if you shoot an intruder in the back
while he's
running down the street.

Lead is low carb.

em said:

"Hollywood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

em said:

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The obsession is not with guns dear.
>> It's with being able to defend yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen will
> be
> able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is __faster__ on
> the
> draw ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well. But
> if
> the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
> who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> mikus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can we apply that lib logic to something a little more on-topic? Gee,
lets
put a big tax on foods based on what the AHA says is bad.

Quoted message said:

More like this:

Quoted message said:

Some folks think, for whatever reason (not backed by actual study of
it)
that handguns make them safer. This sounds a lot like some folks
thinking,
for whatever reason (not based on actual good studies) that fat makes
them
fat, that fat people are all lazy, that semi-starvation diets work,
that insulin
doesn't matter, etc, etc, etc.

Quoted message said:

It's the same thing, really.

Somebody tried to break into my parent's house once when my mom was alone.
She held up the gun, the guy ran away. Good for him (maybe), she woulda shot
him if he didn't run.

That's about how the transaction should work. Ideally.

Quoted message said:

I would have no problem shooting some crack head off the street who broke
into my home if I thought me or the kids were in danger.

How many crack heads off the street have bounced into your home? And
how
many guns do you own? I don't want to abridge your right to ownership,
I'm
just curious about the rationality.

Quoted message said:

What about you?

In 35 years of living in almost exclusively urban environments (and
high crime
ones at that... New York in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, Los Angeles
around
the millenium and St. Louis when it was the per capita crime capital
of the US),
it's never happened and I don't know anyone it's happened to. I weigh
the risks.
Risk of a crack head bouncing into my home intent on harming me or my
wife
(as opposed to stealing my very old stereo) vs. the risk of a fire arm
accident. If
you look at the data, you're more likely to be shot with your own gun
than the
one a criminal brings through your window (funny, criminals also
respond to
incentives: bringing a gun on a break and entry tends to jack up
sentences and
increase charges brought).

Quoted message said:

Then again, I don't want to argue gun control here on this group. There's
too much on-topic political [censored] to worry about, one example was pointed
out by Jackie.

No doubt.

Hollywood said:

Jackie Patti said:

Hollywood said:

What a lot of folks see is the home invader holding their very own
firearm
on them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What others see is a criminal who brought the gun as a threat,
threatened
and forced to use it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still others see other "externalities" to the legal gun - legal gun
owner
transaction.

Quoted message said:

I see someone responding to offtopic posts crossposted here for no good
reason.

Quoted message said:

Back on topic: guns are low-carb.

You, of course, are welcome to eat your gun.

I want to amend that. I looked at my goofy reader and thought I was
replying to
JCderKoneHead, not you. My bad, and apologies.

Back to topic.

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:

:: On Oct 11, 10:31 am, Pan Ohco <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:38 -0400, Mikus Grinbergs <[email hidden]>::: wrote:

:::
::::: The obsession is not with guns dear.
::::: It's with being able to defend yourself.
:::
:::: There is an unspoken assumption here -- that the (armed) citizen
:::: will be able to deter a criminal. But what if the criminal is
:::: __faster__ on the draw ?
:::
:::: Having citizens be armed when criminals are not should work well.
:::: But if the criminals *also* have guns -- it becomes a jungle --
:::: who knows which one will be the one who gets shot ?
:::
:::: mikus
:::
::: So don't carry, and ensure that you will be the one shot?
::
:: Funny thing, in states like FL that adopted a right to actually carry
:: pistols, I don't see the good guys losing in most shoot outs. What I
:: often see is someone using a gun to successfully defent themselves
:: against an armed criminal, often without even having to use it.

You see this often? Explain....

Yes, it's usually buried in the local newspapers and rarely mentioned
by the major TV networks, who only cover when some nut goes biserk and
kills someone with a gun. I see local news stories reprinted in
every issue of the American Rifleman, where a firearm was used for
protection to stop a crime or to prevent the person being killed.
Here's just a few recent news stories from FL, which has a right to
carry law:

Your search located 400 records

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...

The Miami Herald, Miami, FL, 09/21/06
State: fl
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2006
Just four months after burglars stole jewelry worth thousands of
dollars from a Florida townhouse, four suspects attempted another
heist. This time, however, the homeowners' 26-year-old son was
sleeping inside. According to police, Richard McKinley heard someone
entering the home, grabbed a handgun and went to investigate. He
confronted four burglars, and pointed his gun at them while demanding
their hasty departure. Instead, they began struggling with McKinley
and he opened fire. One intruder died instantly. The others fled.
"[McKinley] took it upon himself to defend himself, and I'd do the
same thing he did," said a neighbor.

Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 05/30/06
State: fl
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2006
High school freshman Javaris Granger woke to the sound of his
mother's frantic screams and ran to her aid, finding a man slamming a
bicycle against the front window in an attempt to break in. Granger
yelled at the man to leave while his mother called his father on the
phone. She handed him the phone and his father told him to get the
guns they used for target shooting and said, "Do what you have to do."
When the intruder kicked in the door, Granger fired five shots, and
the man fled. A suspect was later apprehended by police and taken to
the hospital with two gunshot wounds. His extensive arrest record
included a charge of attacking a police officer the day before he
allegedly broke into Granger's home. "My husband tried to get everyone
to learn the safety of a gun," said Granger's mother. "It paid off."

Pensacola News Journal, Pensacola, FL, 03/06/06
State: fl
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006
When Edward Lucas, Sr., checked to see why the neighbor's German
shepherd was barking in the early morning hours, he found a man trying
to break through his door. "I yelled, 'Get out of my house!' but he
kept coming," Lucas said. "I was scared to death." The 63-year-old
then grabbed a .22-cal. rifle and yelled for his girlfriend to jump
out the window and call the police at a neighbor's house. According to
police, when the intruder crashed through the door, Lucas shot at him
at least four times. The assailant, who had 14 criminal convictions
including seven felonies, died on the scene.

Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 02/22/06
State: fl
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2006
Police were still investigating an odd string of events that ended
with a home invasion. Witnesses said the intruder approached at least
four homes, banging on and breaking windows and jumping over chain-
link fences before breaking through Pete Frinks' front door. "It's
scary that he would do this in broad daylight, knowing people are in
the house," said a neighbor. Police say the man approached Frinks, who
later described the intruder as acting "aggressively" and
"irrationally." In fear of his life, Frinks grabbed a handgun and shot
his assailant in the chest, killing him.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:15:14 -0000, Hollywood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

you look at the data, you're more likely to be shot with your own gun
than the
one a criminal brings through your window (funny, criminals also
respond to
incentives: bringing a gun on a break and entry tends to jack up
sentences and
increase charges brought).

Could you give me a cite on this data. And are you including suicides
in that data?
If you think that criminals are fearful of enhancements you are wrong.
Criminals do not believe that they will be caught, and arrested.
As for crack heads, if they had a gun they would sell it for more
crack.

Hollywood wrote:

:: You're entitled to own your gun. You should also be entitled to full
:: prosecution
:: for indifference to human life if you shoot an intruder in the back
:: while he's
:: running down the street.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or, Gun.