Dave Smith wrote:
> 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

OK. That demonstrates that the US has a higher per capita murder rate. That
was already a given.
>>
>>> 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

I prefer the CDC's WISQARS data base when for objective data.
http://tinyurl.com/28hnpn

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

In context to what? Certainly not to overall causes of death, or the risks
of legal gun ownership.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> OK. That demonstrates that the US has a higher per capita murder rate. That
> was already a given.


Actually, they were talking about the homicide rate, not the murder rate.

> > You have internet access so you are certainly able to check for
> > yourself. The differences are not just statistically significant.
> > They are overwhelming.
>
> In context to what? Certainly not to overall causes of death, or the risks
> of legal gun ownership.

In the context of whatever you want to research. I am well aware that a lot
of the stats seem to be from pro and anti gun groups and tend to be skewed
one way or another in order to suit their respective views. I don't have
a problem with private e gun ownership. However, when I look at the
difference in homicide rates and the numbers of deaths attributed to
handguns it is pretty clear that the handguns are the culprits, though
there is also the difference in the attitude toward the use of deadly force
and the rapid escalation of levels of threat when firearms are present or
expected to be present.

Omelet wrote:

> Guns are the great equalizer.

Very scary that some people believe that.

[This is off-topic for one of these newsgroups, but I'm not sure where
the thread started. So, I'm posting to both. Follow-up is set to
tx.guns only]

Dave Smith wrote:

> In the context of whatever you want to research. I am well aware that a lot
> of the stats seem to be from pro and anti gun groups and tend to be skewed
> one way or another in order to suit their respective views. I don't have
> a problem with private e gun ownership. However, when I look at the
> difference in homicide rates and the numbers of deaths attributed to
> handguns it is pretty clear that the handguns are the culprits, though
> there is also the difference in the attitude toward the use of deadly force
> and the rapid escalation of levels of threat when firearms are present or
> expected to be present.

It may be "pretty clear" to you, but not to anyone that has looked at
the evidence, world-wide:

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Volume 30, Number 2, Spring 2002
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A review of International and some Domestic Evidence.

http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf


More recently:

Do Restrictive Firearm Laws Improve Public Safety?
(pre-publication draft of article published by Institute of Economic
Analysis in February 2007)

http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/MauserPaper-200611.pdf

There's a section about Canada, starting on page 7.


When you choose the data carefully, you can come to any conclusion you
want. You accuse others of doing so, but you did the same thing
yourself -- choosing the statistics that you want to believe.

The reality is that homicide rates are influenced by many social and
cultural factors. Banning or severely restricting availability of
firearms has had no effect on overall rates: any change at all has
simply been a shift to other means of assault.

However, I believe there is definitely one cause-effect relationship:
violent crime causes gun control -- because that's the typical
mis-guided legislative response. This is discussed on page 672 of the
first article (page 25 in the on-line PDF).

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> 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.

I will not disagree.

> Stepping outside with a shotgun to chase some teenage trespassers off your
> property is excessive use of force.

But sometimes that is what it takes.
I'd personally use a high power water nozzle on the garden hose first.

> Shooting someone in the back while they
> run away with your property is not self defence.

I know that.
And I preach it.

> 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.

In some states, it is...
unfortunately.

A gun is a last resort, not a first one.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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

Michel Boucher wrote:

> Dave Smith > scripsit in
> :
>
> > Are you suggesting that we have to keep our voices down in order
> > not to disturb the lout's high volume conversation.
>
> No, I'm suggesting that by raising your voice to annoy the cell phone
> user that you are indirectly punishing other non-cell phone users
> around you.
>
> 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.
>
> In fact, cellphones now have volume controls so that you can hear much
> better. You should in fact speak into a cellphone with a regular
> voice. Perhaps you should inform those who shout (if in fact they do)
> of these modern features. Bad reception may have been the case twenty
> years ago when you decided to behave that way, but the technology has
> improved since then. However, it seems your need to impose yourself
> hasn't.


Are you egging on Dave because he's a hated Anglophone...???

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" > scripsit in news:q%49i.13652
:

> Are you egging on Dave because he's a hated Anglophone...???

All I did was post something, a link to a story. Dave did the rest all
by himself. Which officious language he speaks is immaterial, except
that we must use the "universal translator": I must speak English so
that he understands...sort of like TV science-fiction shows, wot? :-)

--

"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

Michel Boucher wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" > scripsit in news:q%49i.13652
> :
>
> > Are you egging on Dave because he's a hated Anglophone...???
>
> All I did was post something, a link to a story. Dave did the rest all
> by himself. Which officious language he speaks is immaterial, except
> that we must use the "universal translator": I must speak English so
> that he understands...sort of like TV science-fiction shows, wot? :-)
>


Okey - doke, then...

;-)

--
Best
Greg

In article >,
says...
> notbob wrote:
> >
> > On 2007-06-02, notbob > stuck both feet in his
> > mouth and wrote:
> >
> > > You're a lyin' sack o' goat dung. That story is older than dirt and
> > > gets dragged out more often than an illegal at a Home Depot parking lot.
> >
> > I apologize for the above post. I'm completely wrong. But, I swear I
> > heard the same story years ago and someone brought it up just a few
> > weeks back. Maybe it was a son. Maybe the guy wasn't a cop. Maybe
> > I'm just old. [shrug]
>
>
> There was an incident a few years ago where a little girl played a trick on
> her father and hid in a closet and made noises to scare him. He shot and
> killed her.
>
> We have different rules her for the use of deadly force. Guns have to be
> safely stored. The only justification for using deadly force is if there is
> a serious threat on your person. Read that to be someone coming at you with
> a weapon. That means no shooting at someone breaking in, unwanted intruders
> and especially nt people running away from you. Police rarely use lethal
> force here because they know that they are obliged to abide by use of force
> guidelines and there will be a serious investigation and they are likely to
> be charged.
>

Interesting. For the longest time I thought RI law stated the same duty
to retreat until I looked it up. Surprise, we have Castle Doctrine here.

In article <dabel-5587A5.17533702062007@cor8-
ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au>, says...
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
>
> > That's the thing that bugs me. A law abiding citizen shouldn't need a
> > permit to carry a weapon.
>
> 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 holster on your belt would be considered ground for police here to
shoot you.

>
> > Criminals don't apply for permits, do they?
>
> Why don't we pass a law requiring them to?

Glad to see that you get the point.

In article >,
says...
> 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
>

Which reminds me of the old joke:

Did you know Captain Hook died of jock itch? Yes, he scratched with the
wrong hand.

In article >,
says...
> 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.

The problem is that the criminal STILL won't care and it'd make more law
abding citizens criminals.

The unintended consquences of feel good lawmaking.

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> T > wrote:
>
> > > It's the criminals carrying illegal/stolen weapons that make people like
> > > me want to carry in the first place.
> >
> > It's more of a PITA when the law states that the sitting AG has to
> > approve all permits. And the one in office now won't approve shit in RI.
> >
> > Here's the thing that really gets me though. RI has Castle Doctrine,
> > RIGL 11-8-8. We are under no duty to retreat in our homes or vehicles
> > yet we are shielded from civil and criminal liability.
> >
> > Reconcile that with our idiotic gun laws.
>
> That's interesting... Castle doctrine and no must issue law?
>

I know, our legislators don't see the problem with that.

In article >,
says...
> Dave Smith > scripsit in
> :
>
> > Are you suggesting that we have to keep our voices down in order
> > not to disturb the lout's high volume conversation.
>
> No, I'm suggesting that by raising your voice to annoy the cell phone
> user that you are indirectly punishing other non-cell phone users
> around you.
>
> 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.
>
> In fact, cellphones now have volume controls so that you can hear much
> better. You should in fact speak into a cellphone with a regular
> voice. Perhaps you should inform those who shout (if in fact they do)
> of these modern features. Bad reception may have been the case twenty
> years ago when you decided to behave that way, but the technology has
> improved since then. However, it seems your need to impose yourself
> hasn't.
>
>

I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to just
cripple the cell phone.

T > scripsit in
:

> I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to
> just cripple the cell phone.

And just about any electronic devices in the area, including heart
monitors and incubation chambers for premies.

Modern Luddite?

--

"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

On 2007-06-06, T > wrote:

> Interesting. For the longest time I thought RI law stated the same duty
> to retreat until I looked it up. Surprise, we have Castle Doctrine here.

Unfortunately, that's not always enough. CA has a similar law to no
avail. Within months of it's passage, a lady in NorCal was besieged
by some nutbag in her rural home. He screamed and yelled, smashed
windows, and made threats to her and her two children. After repeated
warnings she was armed and would not hesitate to shoot, he finally
broke in only to meet an outgoing congregation of lead pellets
resulting in severe loss of mortal coil. Last I heard, she was in
custody and the kids in the system. This several years ago, so I
don't know what finally became of her, but it sure gave one pause
about the validity of such laws.

nb

On Jun 3, 7:39 am, Omelet > wrote:
> 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

A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some asshole in a small
penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
just never know what folks will do.

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> T > scripsit in
> :
>
> > I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to
> > just cripple the cell phone.
>
> And just about any electronic devices in the area, including heart
> monitors and incubation chambers for premies.


Not to mention the EMT who is on call, and has his cell phone set to
"silent", and would certainly step out to get the call, and thinks it is
working because he checked it 5 minutes before "T" entered.

In article >,
T > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > In article >,
> > T > wrote:
> >
> > > > It's the criminals carrying illegal/stolen weapons that make people
> > > > like
> > > > me want to carry in the first place.
> > >
> > > It's more of a PITA when the law states that the sitting AG has to
> > > approve all permits. And the one in office now won't approve shit in RI.
> > >
> > > Here's the thing that really gets me though. RI has Castle Doctrine,
> > > RIGL 11-8-8. We are under no duty to retreat in our homes or vehicles
> > > yet we are shielded from civil and criminal liability.
> > >
> > > Reconcile that with our idiotic gun laws.
> >
> > That's interesting... Castle doctrine and no must issue law?
> >
>
> I know, our legislators don't see the problem with that.

Hopefully they will figure it out someday.
--
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 >,
T > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > Dave Smith > scripsit in
> > :
> >
> > > Are you suggesting that we have to keep our voices down in order
> > > not to disturb the lout's high volume conversation.
> >
> > No, I'm suggesting that by raising your voice to annoy the cell phone
> > user that you are indirectly punishing other non-cell phone users
> > around you.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > In fact, cellphones now have volume controls so that you can hear much
> > better. You should in fact speak into a cellphone with a regular
> > voice. Perhaps you should inform those who shout (if in fact they do)
> > of these modern features. Bad reception may have been the case twenty
> > years ago when you decided to behave that way, but the technology has
> > improved since then. However, it seems your need to impose yourself
> > hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to just
> cripple the cell phone.

Ooh cool idea!

Just make sure it's directional and has a tight broadcasting beam.

Wonder if that is possible?
--
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 m>,
merryb > wrote:

> A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
> attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some asshole in a small
> penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
> him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
> pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
> just never know what folks will do.

Very true. ;-)

I would have just given the finger back.

I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
deliberately tried to run me off the road.

The Keltec is in easy reach.

I would have to feel a real direct threat.
Getting ****ed at another driver is never an excuse to pull a gun. You
should have gotten the license number and reported it. What he did was
not legal.

Not at all.

That is what cellphones are for.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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

merryb > wrote:

>A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
>attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some asshole in a small
>penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
>him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
>pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
>just never know what folks will do.

I agree about the being careful part.

I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
the police.

Steve

Om replied:

>> I just want a compact yet effective EMP generator. I'd prefer to just
>> cripple the cell phone.
>
> Ooh cool idea!
>
> Just make sure it's directional and has a tight broadcasting beam.
>
> Wonder if that is possible?


It's certainly possible to jam cell phones; I remember a news article about
churches using cell phone jammers not all that long ago. Here's one such:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...celljam21.html


It's also possible to buy a cell phone jammer:

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm


Bob

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> merryb > wrote:
>
> >A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
> >attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some asshole in a small
> >penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
> >him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
> >pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
> >just never know what folks will do.
>
> I agree about the being careful part.
>
> I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
> the police.
>
> Steve

Ditto.
--
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'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> deliberately tried to run me off the road.

I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
dangerous situation because they are armed.
..



> That is what cellphones are for.


There is also disengagement.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> > deliberately tried to run me off the road.
>
> I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
> gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
> pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
> people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
> dangerous situation because they are armed.

Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
f-head. That would not be legal according to CHL laws. It would make ME
the aggressor. Instead, I'd pull my cellphone and lodge a police
complaint.

You see, I have studied the laws.
It's kinda required before you get a permit.
That's the idea of having to take classes to GET the thing.

> .
>
>
>
> > That is what cellphones are for.
>
>
> There is also disengagement.

Duh.

Are you REALLY this ignorant?
--
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'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> > > deliberately tried to run me off the road.
> >
> > I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
> > gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and then
> > pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
> > people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
> > dangerous situation because they are armed.
>
> Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
> f-head.

Then why would you pull your gun?

> That would not be legal according to CHL laws. It would make ME
> the aggressor. Instead, I'd pull my cellphone and lodge a police
> complaint.
>
> You see, I have studied the laws.
> It's kinda required before you get a permit.
> That's the idea of having to take classes to GET the thing.

> > > That is what cellphones are for.
> >
> >
> > There is also disengagement.
>
> Duh.
>
> Are you REALLY this ignorant?

You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
Disengagement is always an option.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > I'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> > > > deliberately tried to run me off the road.
> > >
> > > I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
> > > gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and
> > > then
> > > pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
> > > people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
> > > dangerous situation because they are armed.
> >
> > Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
> > f-head.
>
> Then why would you pull your gun?

To stop the A-hole from RUNNING me off the road in the first place!
I could get killed in a fatal car wreck.

Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so I'd be
justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to prevent it in
the first place.

> > Are you REALLY this ignorant?
>
> You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
> in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
> Disengagement is always an option.

So I should let myself be run off a cliff or into a lake?

Oh that makes so much sense!

Thank you for your profound wisdom.

For the record, I've spent the last year training myself in the proper
use of self defense and deadly force.

Bring it on.

There are books, classes and field courses galore available to civilians
nowadays. I've made good use of resources.

Frankly, I'm shocked that if you worked in law enforcement like you
claim, you are defending criminal actions and so against civilian self
defense!

That's just weird.
--
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'd never, EVER pull my weapon on the highway unless someone
> > > > > deliberately tried to run me off the road.
> > > >
> > > > I can see it now. A car forces the armed driver off the road. Gun owner
> > > > gets going, drives like hell to catch up to the aggressive driver and
> > > > then
> > > > pulls out the gun in "self defence". That is one of the problems with
> > > > people carrying hand guns for "self defence", putting themselves in a
> > > > dangerous situation because they are armed.
> > >
> > > Um, if I make it safely off the road, I'm NOT going to chase down the
> > > f-head.
> >
> > Then why would you pull your gun?
>
> To stop the A-hole from RUNNING me off the road in the first place!
> I could get killed in a fatal car wreck.


Ahhhh I see.... I was confused by the use of the past tense, "highway
unless someone deliberately tried to run me off the road". You are going
to be driving alongside each other and he is going to signal his intention
to run you off the road. Should this ever happen, you are going to have
time to get your gun out of the glove compartment or wherever it is safely
stored for use in such a situation, and you are going to be able to drive
while dealing with this threat and getting your gun, and then brandish it
in a threatening manner to make him/her back off, or shoot the *******, in
which case the speeding car will careen into something else. Quite the
scenario.

>
> Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so I'd be
> justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to prevent it in
> the first place.
>
> > > Are you REALLY this ignorant?
> >
> > You seem to be saying that as if you think it is a valid comment. I worked
> > in law enforcement and was trained in the use of force and self defence.
> > Disengagement is always an option.
>
> So I should let myself be run off a cliff or into a lake?

Do you often find yourself in a situation where you are driving along the
edge of a cliff or beside a lake and someone tries to force you over the
edge? They can only force you over if you are moving. You can stop.

>
> Oh that makes so much sense!
>
> Thank you for your profound wisdom.
>
> For the record, I've spent the last year training myself in the proper
> use of self defense and deadly force.
>
> Bring it on.

Yep "Bring it on".... the words of defiance and challenge used by those who
claim only to be defending themselves.

>
> There are books, classes and field courses galore available to civilians
> nowadays. I've made good use of resources.
>
> Frankly, I'm shocked that if you worked in law enforcement like you
> claim, you are defending criminal actions and so against civilian self
> defense!


I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

On Jun 6, 11:01 pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> > merryb > wrote:
>
> > >A few days ago, my husband was riding his motorcycle. He was
> > >attempting to merge onto the freeway, but some asshole in a small
> > >penis truck cut him off. My husband pulled up alongside him and gave
> > >him the finger(which I gave him hell about). The jerk in the truck
> > >pointed a gun at him! You have to be sooo careful nowadays because you
> > >just never know what folks will do.
>
> > I agree about the being careful part.
>
> > I hope this incident of brandishing a weapon was reported to
> > the police.
>
> > Steve
>
> Ditto.
> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

You bet it was! Hopefully something will be done about it, but I have
my doubts.

Omelet > wrote:

> Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so
> I'd be justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to
> prevent it in the first place.

Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
was escalation.

Steve

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
> fraction of US rate. It works better for us.

And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.

End of thread.
--
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 >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > Going after someone with a car is assault with a deadly weapon so
> > I'd be justified. The trick is being fast enough on the draw to
> > prevent it in the first place.
>
> Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
> always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
> an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
> prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
> difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
> was escalation.
>
> Steve

So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?

Sweet.

Fortunately, I'm not afraid of death.
--
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:
>
> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a small
> > fraction of US rate. It works better for us.
>
> And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.
>
> End of thread.


You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
people getting killed by all those guns.
But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
every Tom Dick and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> > > I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a
> > > small
> > > fraction of US rate. It works better for us.
> >
> > And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.
> >
> > End of thread.
>
>
> You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
> who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
> guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
> very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
> people getting killed by all those guns.
> But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
> every Tom Dick and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
> doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.

You have not done your research.

There are far more threats than people with guns.

Guns are not the threat.
They never have been.
--
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:

> (Steve Pope) wrote:

>> Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
>> always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
>> an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
>> prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
>> difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
>> was escalation.

>So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?

In many situations, yes. It is not always possible to justifiably
use lethal force to prevent a lethal attack. It is only sometimes
possible.

Steve

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
> >> Freeway shooters have used this self-defense argument. It has
> >> always failed. It's very hard to prove the other guy made
> >> an illegal or dangerous driving maneuver, but much more easy to
> >> prove the shooter displayed and/or fired a weapon. It's also
> >> difficult to counter the argument that introducing a firearm
> >> was escalation.
>
> >So I guess I have to die to prove murderous intent?
>
> In many situations, yes. It is not always possible to justifiably
> use lethal force to prevent a lethal attack. It is only sometimes
> possible.
>
> Steve

So what is the solution???

Om-> Ever the student...
--
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:
>
>
> > You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
> > who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
> > guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
> > very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
> > people getting killed by all those guns.
> > But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
> > every Tom Dick and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
> > doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.
>
> You have not done your research.
>
> There are far more threats than people with guns.
>
> Guns are not the threat.
> They never have been.


I have done my homework, and the comparative number of gun deaths speak
volume. They obviously don't make anyone safer.


> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Jun 3, 10:39 am, Omelet > wrote:
> 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.

Well no. There is a lot of question about this assertion. In fact
there are severe methodological problems with the studies that suggest
this (and some rather severe data problems which affect the conclusion
but are not the fault of the researchers). The data quality problems
were only identifed 5- 6 year after the research was done. I don't
know if the data problems favoured or detracted from the pro - gun
researchers arguments. It looked like it could go either way.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
>
>
> > > 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

On Jun 7, 5:13 pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Omelet wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > > > I worked in law enforcement in a country where the homicide rate is a
> > > > small
> > > > fraction of US rate. It works better for us.
>
> > > And this tells me that this is no longer worth debating with you.
>
> > > End of thread.
>
> > You never were debating. You came up with a scenario about shooting someone
> > who is trying to force you off the road, and then you weren't going to. You
> > guys have a lot more people carrying guns around for self protection, but
> > very few people around here feel the need because there are so many fewer
> > people getting killed by all those guns.
> > But go ahead and don't listen. Just don't expect me to believe that having
> > every Tom Dick and Harriet carrying a piece makes your society safer. It
> > doesn't. It makes it less safe, and the numbers prove it beyond a doubt.
>
> You have not done your research.
I have and Dave is right
>
> There are far more threats than people with guns.
>
> Guns are not the threat.
> They never have been.
> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson