Omelet wrote:
>
>
> >
> > That's the thing that bugs me. A law abiding citizen shouldn't need a
> > permit to carry a weapon. Criminals don't apply for permits, do they?
>
> <lol> Exactly!

In that case, make the penalty for carrying one so steep that the criminals
won't want to be caught with one.

We have gun control controversy here in Canada where the old regulations
were quite reasonable, but we have certain groups who like to carry guns
and shoot each other on a regular basis. The knee jerk reaction is to call
for a ban on handguns, but for all intents and purposes, those handguns are
already illegal. Perhaps they should be considering the young offender laws
that just give these kids a slap on the wrist.

I am a gun owner who supports reasonable and effective gun control, but
who thinks that they should try enforcing laws already on the books and
handing out longer sentences before bringing in new laws that the criminals
will continue to ignore.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A gun in the glove box is an invitation to violent road rage incidents.
> >
> > ROFL!!!
> >
> > That is wrong on so many counts, I won't even start!
> > The incidents of using a gun in a road range incidents are in the small
> > decimals. Especially for license holders.
>
> But it happens.


Rarely.
Why let the minority of the idiots dictate to the rest of us?

>
> >
> > I do get ticked off at stupid drivers sometimes, especially on the
> > freeway and I keep my little Keltec on the visor over my head. Not ONCE
> > have I ever been seriously tempted to pull it!
>
> But others have.

Statistics count.

The number of lives SAVED by having a legal weapon available far
outweigh the morons.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone that routinely leaves a weapon in an unattended vehicle is an
> > idiot.
>
> And there are lots of those around.

No comment. <smirk>

(The irony is thick...)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
>
> we have to keep our voices down in order not to
> >disturb the lout's high volume conversation. It is quite common for people
> >to raise their voices in conversation to overcome ambient noise. In this
> >case, the ambient noise level is high because most cell phone users raise
> >their voices. If they are offended by the noise I am creating they can
> >take their phone call outside, where it should have been taken in the first
> >place.
>
> Dave - I was in an elevator at my office last week with my boss. We
> were quietly talking about some papers we needed to work on when this
> ditz who had been yakking on a cellphone (talking louder than normal
> conversation) barked, "Do you mind? I'm trying to have a conversation
> here." The two of us rode up the rest of the way in total silence
> while she continued to blather, doing big eyeball rolls to each other.

"So are we."

> I wanted to tell her how utterly rude she was, but couldn't figure out
> how to do it without sounding rude myself. So, I just kept quiet.
> Imagine that.


I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
obligation to be polite to rude people. People like her are like that
because they are rude and self centred and used to getting away with it.

"Omelet" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Really?? Yay.

> Sorry hon', I try to restrain myself, I really do, but some subjects
> and comments are too hard to resist. ;-)

Bad enough (and I'm guilty as the next) that we're talking
about cell phones on a cooking newsgroup, but you dragged
in guns completely out of the blue. Again.

I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.

nancy

Omelet wrote:
>
>
>
> One of the cardinal gun safety rules is:
>
> "Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it".
> One can only hope that users remember that in a panic situation.

That is the reason for proper training and practice. I had to take on the
job use of force training and the practical exercises and the few times I
had to do it I was glad to have that training to fall back on.

> > A gun kept for self-defence is much more likely to be involved in an
> > accidental shooting, suicide, or domestic violence than it is to be used
> > in a legitimate self-defense situation. Stats have shown this for
> > decades.
>
> Cites please.

You have to be kidding.

>

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> >
> > we have to keep our voices down in order not to
> > >disturb the lout's high volume conversation. It is quite common for people
> > >to raise their voices in conversation to overcome ambient noise. In this
> > >case, the ambient noise level is high because most cell phone users raise
> > >their voices. If they are offended by the noise I am creating they can
> > >take their phone call outside, where it should have been taken in the first
> > >place.
> >
> > Dave - I was in an elevator at my office last week with my boss. We
> > were quietly talking about some papers we needed to work on when this
> > ditz who had been yakking on a cellphone (talking louder than normal
> > conversation) barked, "Do you mind? I'm trying to have a conversation
> > here." The two of us rode up the rest of the way in total silence
> > while she continued to blather, doing big eyeball rolls to each other.
>
> "So are we."
>
> > I wanted to tell her how utterly rude she was, but couldn't figure out
> > how to do it without sounding rude myself. So, I just kept quiet.
> > Imagine that.
>
>
> I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
> obligation to be polite to rude people. People like her are like that
> because they are rude and self centred and used to getting away with it.

I agree with that. Treat them the same as they treat you.
I'd have repeated her own statement back to her!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote
>
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >> Really?? Yay.
>
> > Sorry hon', I try to restrain myself, I really do, but some subjects
> > and comments are too hard to resist. ;-)
>
> Bad enough (and I'm guilty as the next) that we're talking
> about cell phones on a cooking newsgroup, but you dragged
> in guns completely out of the blue. Again.
>
> I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.
>
> nancy

I'm trying to remember how and why now the thread drift drifted that
way. ;-) It was appropriate at the time IIRC...

but I won't argue that it's totally off topic.

So are cellphones.<G>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Bad enough (and I'm guilty as the next) that we're talking
>> about cell phones on a cooking newsgroup, but you dragged
>> in guns completely out of the blue. Again.
>>
>> I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.

> I'm trying to remember how and why now the thread drift drifted that
> way. ;-) It was appropriate at the time IIRC...

The subject came up, can they track cell phones. You decided
this would be a good time to mention carrying a gun. Out of the
blue.

nancy

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> > > A gun kept for self-defence is much more likely to be involved in an
> > > accidental shooting, suicide, or domestic violence than it is to be used
> > > in a legitimate self-defense situation. Stats have shown this for
> > > decades.
> >
> > Cites please.
>
> You have to be kidding.
>

No, I'm not.
I'd love to see the real statistics on this.

As far as I have read, guns for self defense in the states save more
lives than they take and most of the ones taken are criminals.

And that's a bad thing?
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
>
>
> > I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
> > obligation to be polite to rude people. People like her are like that
> > because they are rude and self centred and used to getting away with it.
>
> I agree with that. Treat them the same as they treat you.
> I'd have repeated her own statement back to her!
> --


I would be more inclined to say Excuse the hell out of me, I thought this
was an elevator not a phone booth.

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote
>
> > "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >> Bad enough (and I'm guilty as the next) that we're talking
> >> about cell phones on a cooking newsgroup, but you dragged
> >> in guns completely out of the blue. Again.
> >>
> >> I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.
>
> > I'm trying to remember how and why now the thread drift drifted that
> > way. ;-) It was appropriate at the time IIRC...
>
> The subject came up, can they track cell phones. You decided
> this would be a good time to mention carrying a gun. Out of the
> blue.
>
> nancy

Oh. That.

It's because it was one of the major reasons I finally decided to get
off my ass and get Tracfone.

I've never owned cellphones before. One of the folks from tx.guns
convinced me (for many reasons) that if I was going to carry a weapon, I
should carry a cellphone.

If I had to pull the gun, the cellphone was pretty much imperitive, even
if I did not end up pulling the trigger.

Most muggers run if the victim is armed.

But they might take revenge by pulling their OWN cellphone and calling
in a crazy with a gun report.

He who makes the first 911 call wins.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
> > > obligation to be polite to rude people. People like her are like that
> > > because they are rude and self centred and used to getting away with it.
> >
> > I agree with that. Treat them the same as they treat you.
> > I'd have repeated her own statement back to her!
> > --
>
>
> I would be more inclined to say Excuse the hell out of me, I thought this
> was an elevator not a phone booth.

Nice. ;-) I'll have to remember that line...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On 2007-06-03, Omelet > wrote:

> He who makes the first 911 call wins.

Just make sure, in your haste, you put the right device to your head!

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2007-06-03, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > He who makes the first 911 call wins.
>
> Just make sure, in your haste, you put the right device to your head!
>
> nb

Smartass... ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet said...

> but I won't argue that it's totally off topic.
>
> So are cellphones.<G>


UNLESS you're dialing for pizza??

Andy

On 2007-06-03, Omelet > wrote:

> No, I'm not.
> I'd love to see the real statistics on this.

unfortunately, your not likely to. Too many law enforcement agencies
....the one's with the data... are loathe to provide stats. Might
encourage a increase of armed citizens. No doubt you're aware NRA pubs
include a page full of these incidents each month.

> As far as I have read, guns for self defense in the states save more
> lives than they take and most of the ones taken are criminals.

Yeah, but you seldom hear of them unless the incident is somehow
unique or noteworthy. I recall one where a couple crooks robbed a
convenience store and were about to shoot one of the family members
that owned and ran the place. Just in time, mom yanked two pistols
from under the counter and came out blasting. Took both dirtbags out
and got an accommodation from the local sheriff. Another was an 80 yr
old lady who stopped a mugging in front of her home when she came out
with an old SSA held in both hands and told the dirtbag to get lost.
She could barely walk, but she knew how to use a gun. Made the
evening news. The gun grabbers hate that sort of thing.

nb

Dave Smith said...

> Omelet wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
>> > obligation to be polite to rude people. People like her are like that
>> > because they are rude and self centred and used to getting away with it.
>>
>> I agree with that. Treat them the same as they treat you.
>> I'd have repeated her own statement back to her!
>> --
>
>
> I would be more inclined to say Excuse the hell out of me, I thought this
> was an elevator not a phone booth.


I was gonna suggest a squirt of superglue on her butt with a parting "Excuse
me, there's something on your..." but NOOOO, Andy wouldn't hear of it!

Andy's Evil Twin

Dave Smith > scripsit in
:

> I have a rule of thumb that some people may not agree with. I have no
> obligation to be polite to rude people.

And in the process you feel it is appropriate to be rude to polite
people?

If you are alone in an elevator with a person who annoys with their
cell phone and you say so, so what...

If I am sitting a few tables away in a restaurant and you raise the
volume of your voice to "teach that person a lesson", I may object more
to your noise than the cellphone user's. You would be the one
intruding and being rude to ME, not the cellphone user necessarily.
And if they were, I wouldn't appreciate you raising your voice. Same
in a bus, or an airport terminal...

It's not all about you, and others don't necessarily appreciate your
interventions.

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
> >
> >
> > For one thing, I don't find that cell phone users have a tendency to
> > raise their voice; we have many of them at work (techs and managers)
> > and I have never found their conversations to be in any way disruptive.
>
>
> Then you must be hard of hearing. There are some who do not. There are lots
> of them who can be heard over all the normal conversation going on around
> them.


Absolutely. Almost every time I am at the grocery, restaurant,
department store or other indoor place with lots of people, there is
usually at least one person, sometimes more, talking very loudly on a
cell phone. I also see others on cell phones whose conversations I
cannot hear. Some people are just loudmouths. Others seem to want to
be heard. Given today's technology, I don't think there is any reason
to talk so loud. If someone is that hard of hearing, then the
conversational volume needs to be attenuated by other means and that
cannot be done in a public place.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> We have gun control controversy here in Canada where the old regulations
> were quite reasonable, but we have certain groups who like to carry guns
> and shoot each other on a regular basis. The knee jerk reaction is to
> call
> for a ban on handguns, but for all intents and purposes, those handguns
> are
> already illegal. Perhaps they should be considering the young offender
> laws
> that just give these kids a slap on the wrist.

We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the criminals have hand
guns

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:33:39 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:28:27 -0400, Dave Smith
> rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>
>>Are you suggesting that we have to keep our voices down in order not to
>>disturb the lout's high volume conversation. It is quite common for people
>>to raise their voices in conversation to overcome ambient noise. In this
>>case, the ambient noise level is high because most cell phone users raise
>>their voices. If they are offended by the noise I am creating they can
>>take their phone call outside, where it should have been taken in the first
>>place.
>
>Dave - I was in an elevator at my office last week with my boss. We
>were quietly talking about some papers we needed to work on when this
>ditz who had been yakking on a cellphone (talking louder than normal
>conversation) barked, "Do you mind? I'm trying to have a conversation
>here." The two of us rode up the rest of the way in total silence
>while she continued to blather, doing big eyeball rolls to each other.
>
>I wanted to tell her how utterly rude she was, but couldn't figure out
>how to do it without sounding rude myself. So, I just kept quiet.
>Imagine that.
>
>Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

I would have taken that as my cue to start singing the Star Spangled
Banner in a baseball stadium voice.

Boron

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Omelet said...
>
> > but I won't argue that it's totally off topic.
> >
> > So are cellphones.<G>
>
>
> UNLESS you're dialing for pizza??
>
> Andy

Fine.

Go there. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2007-06-03, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not.
> > I'd love to see the real statistics on this.
>
> unfortunately, your not likely to. Too many law enforcement agencies
> ...the one's with the data... are loathe to provide stats. Might
> encourage a increase of armed citizens. No doubt you're aware NRA pubs
> include a page full of these incidents each month.
>
> > As far as I have read, guns for self defense in the states save more
> > lives than they take and most of the ones taken are criminals.
>
> Yeah, but you seldom hear of them unless the incident is somehow
> unique or noteworthy. I recall one where a couple crooks robbed a
> convenience store and were about to shoot one of the family members
> that owned and ran the place. Just in time, mom yanked two pistols
> from under the counter and came out blasting. Took both dirtbags out
> and got an accommodation from the local sheriff. Another was an 80 yr
> old lady who stopped a mugging in front of her home when she came out
> with an old SSA held in both hands and told the dirtbag to get lost.
> She could barely walk, but she knew how to use a gun. Made the
> evening news. The gun grabbers hate that sort of thing.
>
> nb

Guns are the great equalizer.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Ophelia" > scripsit in
:

> We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the criminals
> have hand guns

And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them criminals
too?

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>> I'm not up on the latest laws, but I don't believe that a citizen needs
>> a permit. Handguns need to be registered in various states, but no
>> permit is required to carry. Just put it in a holster and strap it on
>> your belt. Do not conceal it, you need a permit for that. The
>> definition is pretty broad. A gun in your glovebox can be considered a
>> concealed weapon.
>
> A gun in the glove box is an invitation to violent road rage incidents. It
> is also a tempting target for thieves, so it will end up being a stolen
> gun on the black market.
> .

I seriously doubt it would have anything to do with road rage.

What would is a self-important type A behind the wheel of their 5 ton "car".

Michel Boucher wrote:
> "Ophelia" > scripsit in
> :
>
>> We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the criminals
>> have hand guns
>
> And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them criminals
> too?

Hmmm that was a silly remark which I didn't expect from you. The police are
armed where necessary and are now being issued with Tazers.

Too many people are being shot in Glasgow by the criminals and we have no
way to protect ourselves because even if we do have some weapons (licenced)
we dare not shoot in defence of ourselves. But as I said, only criminals
have hand guns. Law abiding people in UK can own rifles or shotguns but
only under tightly controlled circumstances and the law in the UK is such
that even if you were to use a legally owned long gun to defend yourself you
would probably find yourself in more trouble than the criminal against whom
you are defending yourself.

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> "Ophelia" > scripsit in
> :
>
> > We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the criminals
> > have hand guns
>
> And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them criminals
> too?

Not everybody lives in Canada, you know.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> Heh, I know, how about a huge pig! No, that's been done.
>

Not entirely. It seems as if was a hoax

http://www.monsterpig.com/

Hog had been a pet just one week before it was shot. And shot in a pen...

BOB

Omelet wrote:
>
>
> > > Cites please.
> >
> > You have to be kidding.
> >
>
> No, I'm not.
> I'd love to see the real statistics on this.


Look at the number of households where guns are kept for self defence and
the number of deaths and injuries resulting from them. Hell, just look at
the number of firearms in the US compared to countries like Canada.


> As far as I have read, guns for self defense in the states save more
> lives than they take and most of the ones taken are criminals.


I have read some of those "studies". Some one hears a noise in the back
yard and takes a gun to go an investigate..... crimes prevented with a gun,
even if the suspected intruder is a racoon. You would have a valid point
if the US were a safer place than it is, if there were fewer shootings and
fewer firearms deaths, but that isn't the case. You end up with a homicide
rate that is about three times ours.

Dan Abel > scripsit in
:

>> > We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the
>> > criminals have hand guns
>>
>> And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them
>> criminals too?
>
> Not everybody lives in Canada, you know.

I am aware of that, more than you might think. But I doubt the
veracity of the statement. Obviously, not only criminals have
handguns. What I believe she meant was that between law-abiding
citizens and criminals, only criminals have hand guns. That is not the
same as saying only criminals have hand guns.

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Dave Smith wrote:

> I have read some of those "studies". Some one hears a noise in the
> back yard and takes a gun to go an investigate..... crimes prevented
> with a gun, even if the suspected intruder is a racoon.

Please, show us the studies that include racoons as a criminal threat.

> You would
> have a valid point if the US were a safer place than it is, if there
> were fewer shootings and fewer firearms deaths, but that isn't the
> case. You end up with a homicide rate that is about three times ours.

Well, you would have a valid point if the US population weren't about 10x
that of Canada.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Smith wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Cites please.
>>>
>>> You have to be kidding.
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm not.
>> I'd love to see the real statistics on this.

All you need do is look.

> Look at the number of households where guns are kept for self defence
> and the number of deaths and injuries resulting from them.

Intentional vs. Unintentional? Criminal vs. non criminal? Please, give us a
reference to the stats you are referring to.

> Hell,
> just look at the number of firearms in the US compared to countries
> like Canada.

Just look at the number of swimming pools, cars, and baseball bats in the
America compared to Canada.

>> As far as I have read, guns for self defense in the states save more
>> lives than they take and most of the ones taken are criminals.
>
>
> I have read some of those "studies". Some one hears a noise in the
> back yard and takes a gun to go an investigate..... crimes prevented
> with a gun, even if the suspected intruder is a racoon. You would
> have a valid point if the US were a safer place than it is, if there
> were fewer shootings and fewer firearms deaths, but that isn't the
> case. You end up with a homicide rate that is about three times ours.

With 10x the Canadian population, along with a higher criminal population,
etc., that statement doesn't prove very much.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:t_
:

> I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.
>
> nancy
>
>
>

Nanners, you know I care...move up here...very few guns, mostly hunting
rifles.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

It'll be a sunny day in August, when the Moon will shine that night-
Elbonian Folklore

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > I have read some of those "studies". Some one hears a noise in the
> > back yard and takes a gun to go an investigate..... crimes prevented
> > with a gun, even if the suspected intruder is a racoon.
>
> Please, show us the studies that include racoons as a criminal threat.

Call it hyperbole, but running with a gun to check out every sound and
every suspected intrusion is not IMO a valid indication of a crime
prevented with a firearm. There are probably more cases of such
intervention by unarmed people so you can just as easily suggest that
unarmed intervention is more effective than armed.
>
> > You would
> > have a valid point if the US were a safer place than it is, if there
> > were fewer shootings and fewer firearms deaths, but that isn't the
> > case. You end up with a homicide rate that is about three times ours.
>
> Well, you would have a valid point if the US population weren't about 10x
> that of Canada.


I referred to the rate, not the actual numbers. I realize that the numbers
change from year to year and seem to also depend on the nature of the
source, but the total firearms death *rate* in the US is roughly 8 times
higher than in Canada. That is far, far past the point at which it would be
considered a statistically significant difference. I noted that includes
suicides, but still.... 8 times higher total.

The firearms homicide *rate* is 5 times higher in the US than in Canada.
Given your estimate of the US population being 10 times larger than
Canada's, that translates to 50 times as many firearms homicides. The big
difference is pretty well accounted for by the handgun deaths.

"hahabogus" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> I know you don't care what I think. Changes nothing.

> Nanners, you know I care...move up here...very few guns, mostly hunting
> rifles.

Thanks, ha! Luckily it's the same where I live. Heh.

nancy

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Dan Abel > scripsit in
> :
>
> >> > We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the
> >> > criminals have hand guns
> >>
> >> And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them
> >> criminals too?
> >
> > Not everybody lives in Canada, you know.
>
> I am aware of that, more than you might think. But I doubt the
> veracity of the statement. Obviously, not only criminals have
> handguns. What I believe she meant was that between law-abiding
> citizens and criminals, only criminals have hand guns. That is not the
> same as saying only criminals have hand guns.

We have _extremely_ tight restrictions on hand guns in New Zealand. And
criminals don't have them, either.

Our Police don't carry sidearms routinely -- there are firearms in their
vehicles and they have backup from the Armed Offenders Squad (SWAT team)
if it's needed.

Despite a high proportion of gun-owning in New Zealand, there are very
few firearms deaths here, and most of those are accidental.

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

In article >,
"Ophelia" > wrote:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
> > "Ophelia" > scripsit in
> > :
> >
> >> We have a ban on handguns with the result that only the criminals
> >> have hand guns
> >
> > And what do the police have? Rocks? Or do you consider them criminals
> > too?
>
> Hmmm that was a silly remark which I didn't expect from you. The police are
> armed where necessary and are now being issued with Tazers.
>
> Too many people are being shot in Glasgow by the criminals and we have no
> way to protect ourselves because even if we do have some weapons (licenced)
> we dare not shoot in defence of ourselves. But as I said, only criminals
> have hand guns. Law abiding people in UK can own rifles or shotguns but
> only under tightly controlled circumstances and the law in the UK is such
> that even if you were to use a legally owned long gun to defend yourself you
> would probably find yourself in more trouble than the criminal against whom
> you are defending yourself.

Defending yourself should never be a crime...

That's just so wrong!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
>
>
>
> Defending yourself should never be a crime...
>
> That's just so wrong!


And I agree..... provided that the person be trained to evaluate the level
of threat and to understand the escalation of acceptable use of force.
Stepping outside with a shotgun to chase some teenage trespassers off your
property is excessive use of force. Shooting someone in the back while they
run away with your property is not self defence. Sorry, but I have been
involved in enough firearms discussions to realize that an astoundingly
high percentage of pro gun types believe that protection of property is the
same as protecting one's life.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I have read some of those "studies". Some one hears a noise in the
>>> back yard and takes a gun to go an investigate..... crimes prevented
>>> with a gun, even if the suspected intruder is a racoon.
>>
>> Please, show us the studies that include racoons as a criminal
>> threat.
>
> Call it hyperbole, but running with a gun to check out every sound and
> every suspected intrusion is not IMO a valid indication of a crime
> prevented with a firearm.

Who does? I haven't read anything that suggest such, but I'm willing to look
at your sources saying that such is the case.

> There are probably more cases of such
> intervention by unarmed people so you can just as easily suggest that
> unarmed intervention is more effective than armed.

Or probably not.

>>> You would
>>> have a valid point if the US were a safer place than it is, if there
>>> were fewer shootings and fewer firearms deaths, but that isn't the
>>> case. You end up with a homicide rate that is about three times
>>> ours.
>>
>> Well, you would have a valid point if the US population weren't
>> about 10x that of Canada.

> I referred to the rate, not the actual numbers.

Which is?

> I realize that the
> numbers change from year to year and seem to also depend on the
> nature of the source, but the total firearms death *rate* in the US
> is roughly 8 times higher than in Canada.

And the rate of death needs to seperated by factor: homicide, unintentional,
etc. The rate of death due to legal ownership of a gun is not the same as
the use of a gun in the commission of a death.

> That is far, far past the
> point at which it would be considered a statistically significant
> difference.

Under what circumstance of possesion and use? Is the rate of death different
amongst Canadians with legal ownership of a gun vs. Americans with the same
legal ownership?

> I noted that includes suicides, but still.... 8 times
> higher total.

But is it caused by a higher percentage of legal gun ownership in the US, or
a higher percentage of criminals?

> The firearms homicide *rate* is 5 times higher in the US than in
> Canada. Given your estimate of the US population being 10 times
> larger than Canada's, that translates to 50 times as many firearms
> homicides.

50 times? Really?

>The big difference is pretty well accounted for by the
> handgun deaths.

I'm open to having you show me the sources for your information.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> >
> >> Well, you would have a valid point if the US population weren't
> >> about 10x that of Canada.
>
> > I referred to the rate, not the actual numbers.
>
> Which is?

For 2003 for example
Homicide number Canada- 548 US - 16.500
rate per 100,000 1.73 .82

Firearms Homicide Canada - 161 US - 11.700

rate .51 4.0
>
> > I realize that the
> > numbers change from year to year and seem to also depend on the
> > nature of the source, but the total firearms death *rate* in the US
> > is roughly 8 times higher than in Canada.
>
> And the rate of death needs to seperated by factor: homicide, unintentional,
> etc. The rate of death due to legal ownership of a gun is not the same as
> the use of a gun in the commission of a death.
>
> > That is far, far past the
> > point at which it would be considered a statistically significant
> > difference.
>
> Under what circumstance of possesion and use? Is the rate of death different
> amongst Canadians with legal ownership of a gun vs. Americans with the same
> legal ownership?
>
>
>
> >The big difference is pretty well accounted for by the
> > handgun deaths.
>
> I'm open to having you show me the sources for your information.

for one....
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Hom...unEpidemic.pdf


You have internet access so you are certainly able to check for yourself.
The differences are not just statistically significant. They are
overwhelming.


But yo