On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>
> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> able to run away.


Hit six times and "ran away"?????
I'll need a cite for that.



>

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> >> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> >> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> >> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> >> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> >> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
> >
> > In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> > able to run away.
>
> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.
>
> >

Hit 5 times out of 6 shots, and if not "ran" away at least got away into
his vehicle which he then crashed a few blocks away. This incident in
Georgia was widely reported in the media just a week or so ago.

On 23/01/2013 3:54 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>>> able to run away.
>>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>>
>>>
>
> Hit 5 times out of 6 shots, and if not "ran" away at least got away into
> his vehicle which he then crashed a few blocks away. This incident in
> Georgia was widely reported in the media just a week or so ago.
>
Okay.... no cite.... but he didn't exactly "run away".

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 23/01/2013 3:54 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen
> > > > > need an assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary
> > > > > citizen need a magazine with more than 6 or 7 rounds of
> > > > > ammunition? And I am not interested in answers that say "it
> > > > > would be a first step in taking away Second Amendment
> > > > > rights," because that is not logical.
> > > >
> > > > In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6
> > > > times, and he was able to run away.
> > >
> > > Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> > > I'll need a cite for that.
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > Hit 5 times out of 6 shots, and if not "ran" away at least got away
> > into his vehicle which he then crashed a few blocks away. This
> > incident in Georgia was widely reported in the media just a week or
> > so ago.
> Okay.... no cite.... but he didn't exactly "run away".

"Run away" is synonymous with retreat. See Monty Python for a cite.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Dave Smith wrote:

> > In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> > able to run away.

> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.

Would you believe.... she used a BB gun?

On 23/01/2013 3:56 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
>>> able to run away.
>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>
> Would you believe.... she used a BB gun?
>
>
LOL

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 3:56 PM, George M. Middius wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he was
> >>> able to run away.
> >
> >> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> >> I'll need a cite for that.
> >
> > Would you believe.... she used a BB gun?
> >
> >
> LOL

..38 revolver, undetermined ammunition type.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/hom...hts/index.html

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>
>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
>> was
>> able to run away.
>
>
> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> I'll need a cite for that.
>
Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
So much for training, eh?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:13:03 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

> >
> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> So much for training, eh?
>

I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
the general gun toting public?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:13:03 -0700, "graham" > wrote:
>
> > >
> > Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> > but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> > some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> > So much for training, eh?
> >
>
> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
> the general gun toting public?

Pretty simple, the "general gun toting public" trains more than most
cops. Unless on a SWAT team or similar most cops qualify a couple times
a year and little more. This is also backed by the fact that most states
have had concealed carry for many years and it has simply not happened
(I've had a CHL for some 18 years).

On 23/01/2013 5:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>
>> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
>> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
>> the general gun toting public?
>
> Pretty simple, the "general gun toting public" trains more than most
> cops. Unless on a SWAT team or similar most cops qualify a couple times
> a year and little more. This is also backed by the fact that most states
> have had concealed carry for many years and it has simply not happened
> (I've had a CHL for some 18 years).
>


Oh that is absolute bullshit. Cops have to qualify on a regular basis.
Joe Public does not. Even up here where handguns are strictly regulated
just about anyone can get a licence to own a handgun. If you want a
permit to transport it to a gun club to shoot you have to take an safety
course and an orientation shoot..... no "qualification". Most gun owners
do not undergo any kind of qualification. OTOH< there are always seems
to be a small contingent of gun nuts who seem to be practising in the
hopes that they might one day get a chance to defend themselves.

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:37:12 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> there are always seems to be a small contingent of gun nuts who seem to
> be practising in the hopes that they might one day get a chance to defend
> themselves.

Like George Zimmerman or Michael Dunn, the killers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, respectively.

--Bryan

On Jan 23, 4:43*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:37:12 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > there are always seems to be a small contingent of gun nuts who seem to
> > be practising in the hopes that they might one day get a chance to defend
> > themselves.
>
> Like George Zimmerman or Michael Dunn, the killers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, respectively.
>
> --Bryan

Zimmerman hasn't gone to trial. Wait...you're a right winger who's
already convicted him.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 5:28 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
> >> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
> >> the general gun toting public?
> >
> > Pretty simple, the "general gun toting public" trains more than most
> > cops. Unless on a SWAT team or similar most cops qualify a couple times
> > a year and little more. This is also backed by the fact that most states
> > have had concealed carry for many years and it has simply not happened
> > (I've had a CHL for some 18 years).
> >
>
> Oh that is absolute bullshit. Cops have to qualify on a regular basis.

Yes, they typically qualify a couple times a year.

> Joe Public does not.

Yes, they do. I just did on my CHL renewal a few months ago.

> Even up here where handguns are strictly regulated
> just about anyone can get a licence to own a handgun. If you want a
> permit to transport it to a gun club to shoot you have to take an safety
> course and an orientation shoot..... no "qualification". Most gun owners
> do not undergo any kind of qualification.

Again, here we most certainly have qualification for a CHL. It's
changing at the moment, but it's around 4 hr class time and an hour or
so of range time. The state specified target is the same silhouette
target the police qualify on.

> OTOH< there are always seems
> to be a small contingent of gun nuts who seem to be practising in the
> hopes that they might one day get a chance to defend themselves.

Those who practice are not nuts, they are the responsible ones who want
to ensure that should they need to defend themselves, they will hit and
neutralize their target and not hit innocent bystanders like NYC police
do.

On 23/01/2013 4:37 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:13:03 -0700, "graham" > wrote:
>
>>>
>> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
>> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
>> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
>> So much for training, eh?
>>
>
> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
> the general gun toting public?
>


You end up with people accidentally shooting a daughter who is playing a
joke on her father, a nine year old dressed up as a skunk at Halloween
getting shot by an idiot uncle, a guy shooting to escaping burglars at a
neighbour's castle... despite being told by the cops not to shoot them,
lost foreign students being shot when going to the wrong house for a
party....

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 4:37 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:13:03 -0700, "graham" > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> >> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> >> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> >> So much for training, eh?
> >>
> >
> > I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
> > ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
> > the general gun toting public?
> >
>
> You end up with people accidentally shooting a daughter who is playing a
> joke on her father, a nine year old dressed up as a skunk at Halloween
> getting shot by an idiot uncle,

Yep, idiots do stupid things, and they do them with or without firearms.
Would you prefer those incidents to be someone getting clubbed to death
with a baseball bat? Would that make you feel better that there was no
evil gun involved?

> a guy shooting to escaping burglars at a
> neighbour's castle... despite being told by the cops not to shoot them,
> lost foreign students being shot when going to the wrong house for a
> party....

To be clear, 911 operators are not cops and have no authority to tell
the person on the phone to do anything.

On 23/01/2013 7:47 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
>>> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
>>> the general gun toting public?
>>>
>>
>> You end up with people accidentally shooting a daughter who is playing a
>> joke on her father, a nine year old dressed up as a skunk at Halloween
>> getting shot by an idiot uncle,
>
> Yep, idiots do stupid things, and they do them with or without firearms.
> Would you prefer those incidents to be someone getting clubbed to death
> with a baseball bat? Would that make you feel better that there was no
> evil gun involved?

Sometimes people say stupid things too. While I have read and heard of a
number of accidentally shootings and mass shootings, I honestly don't
recall any news articles about accidental clubbings or multiple clubbing
deaths.

>
>> a guy shooting to escaping burglars at a
>> neighbour's castle... despite being told by the cops not to shoot them,
>> lost foreign students being shot when going to the wrong house for a
>> party....
>
> To be clear, 911 operators are not cops and have no authority to tell
> the person on the phone to do anything.


Yes....and?

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:15:04 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 23/01/2013 7:47 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember it as happening a few years ago, but as you say - if cops
>>>> ended up shooting each other, how can we expect better results from
>>>> the general gun toting public?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You end up with people accidentally shooting a daughter who is playing a
>>> joke on her father, a nine year old dressed up as a skunk at Halloween
>>> getting shot by an idiot uncle,
>>
>> Yep, idiots do stupid things, and they do them with or without firearms.
>> Would you prefer those incidents to be someone getting clubbed to death
>> with a baseball bat? Would that make you feel better that there was no
>> evil gun involved?
>
>Sometimes people say stupid things too. While I have read and heard of a
>number of accidentally shootings and mass shootings, I honestly don't
>recall any news articles about accidental clubbings or multiple clubbing
>deaths.
>

Sure you have-- We do that with cars. With alarming frequency--
more often than with guns-- but then, I think we have more cars.

Jim

On 23/01/2013 4:13 PM, graham wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>
>>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
>>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
>>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
>>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
>>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
>>>
>>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
>>> was
>>> able to run away.
>>
>>
>> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
>> I'll need a cite for that.
>>
> Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> So much for training, eh?
>
>


Yep. I remember reading about that one a few years ago. There were at
least five cops shot .... by "friendly fire"

Along a similar line was the case in New Orleans <?> where a guy bought
his grandmother a gun for self defence. For some reason, the cops
tried to raid her house. The original story was that she shot 5 cops
before gunned gunned her down. The subsequent investigation determined
that the cops were all shot by other cops.

I just don't get this whole firearms for self defence stuff. There are
lots of guns up here, but you have to jump through hoops to get the
licence to buy or own them, and they have to be safely stored here.
There is no doubt that there are some people who think they need them to
guard their castles but there are some facts to deal with.... like that
you can't do that here. You can only use lethal force to counter a
likely lethal force, and forget about using a handgun, because that will
be locked up and trigger locked and ammo stored elsewhere... by law. If
you have time to go and get the gun and unlock it and get the ammo....
you weren't in that much danger.


The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 4:13 PM, graham wrote:
> > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> >>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> >>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> >>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> >>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
> >>>
> >>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
> >>> was
> >>> able to run away.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> >> I'll need a cite for that.
> >>
> > Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> > but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> > some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> > So much for training, eh?
> >
> >
>
> Yep. I remember reading about that one a few years ago. There were at
> least five cops shot .... by "friendly fire"
>
> Along a similar line was the case in New Orleans <?> where a guy bought
> his grandmother a gun for self defence. For some reason, the cops
> tried to raid her house. The original story was that she shot 5 cops
> before gunned gunned her down. The subsequent investigation determined
> that the cops were all shot by other cops.

Those cops got in trouble as well for their negligence.

>
> I just don't get this whole firearms for self defence stuff.

It seems you won't "get it" until you find yourself in the position of
needing to defend yourself. The fact that you have not yet been in such
a situation in now way invalidates the thousands of people who are in
such situations daily and who successfully defend themselves with
firearms, most cases you never hear about.

> There are
> lots of guns up here, but you have to jump through hoops to get the
> licence to buy or own them, and they have to be safely stored here.
> There is no doubt that there are some people who think they need them to
> guard their castles but there are some facts to deal with.... like that
> you can't do that here. You can only use lethal force to counter a
> likely lethal force, and forget about using a handgun, because that will
> be locked up and trigger locked and ammo stored elsewhere... by law. If
> you have time to go and get the gun and unlock it and get the ammo....
> you weren't in that much danger.

Denying people the basic human right of self defense is a crime against
humanity.

>
> The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
> this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
> homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
> armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
> for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.

Your murder rate in your big cities is fast approaching those of our
festering big cities. Our crime rates outside of those festering big
cities are little different than your crime rates. Anti-gun types like
to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.

On 23/01/2013 7:55 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>
>> The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
>> this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
>> homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
>> armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
>> for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.
>
> Your murder rate in your big cities is fast approaching those of our
> festering big cities. Our crime rates outside of those festering big
> cities are little different than your crime rates.


IF that were true, our respective murder rates would be similar. They
aren't. The US murder rate is double that of Canada.



> Anti-gun types like
> to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
> of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
> members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
> of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.


If it is just gang members killing each other there isn't much need to
Joe Homeowner to be so concerned.

>

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:25:18 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> > Anti-gun types like
> > to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
> > of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
> > members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
> > of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.
>
>
> If it is just gang members killing each other there isn't much need to
> Joe Homeowner to be so concerned.

LOL! Checkmate.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:25:18 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > > Anti-gun types like
> > > to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
> > > of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
> > > members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
> > > of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.
> >
> >
> > If it is just gang members killing each other there isn't much need to
> > Joe Homeowner to be so concerned.
>
> LOL! Checkmate.

Sorry beotch, the second amendment says that I (the people) have the
right (not privilege) to keep and bear arms. If you don't like it, feel
free to move to some country full of disarmed victims, perhaps the UK.
I've been there recently and it's a festering crime cesspool.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 7:55 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
> >> this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
> >> homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
> >> armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
> >> for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.
> >
> > Your murder rate in your big cities is fast approaching those of our
> > festering big cities. Our crime rates outside of those festering big
> > cities are little different than your crime rates.
>
> IF that were true, our respective murder rates would be similar. They
> aren't. The US murder rate is double that of Canada.

We have more big cities with gang problems as noted. Again this has
little effect on those who do not live in those geographically small
areas.

>
> > Anti-gun types like
> > to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
> > of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
> > members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
> > of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.
>
> If it is just gang members killing each other there isn't much need to
> Joe Homeowner to be so concerned.

Joe Homeowner has plenty of reason to be concerned when a tiny minority
of paranoid anti-gun nuts is attacking their constitutionally guaranteed
right. The second amendment says "people", not "political elite", says
"right", not "privilege" and says "infringed", not "prohibited".

On 24/01/2013 9:03 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/2013 7:55 PM, Pete C. wrote:

> Joe Homeowner has plenty of reason to be concerned when a tiny minority
> of paranoid anti-gun nuts is attacking their constitutionally guaranteed
> right. The second amendment says "people", not "political elite", says
> "right", not "privilege" and says "infringed", not "prohibited".
>


Well, the way I read that, it talks about the need for a well ordered
militia and the citizens' right to "bear arms" which back then meant to
belong to a militia, not to carry guns around in public. When the US
homicide rate drops to the point where it looks better than the
civilized world I will change my attitude about the value of citizens
carrying guns in public. I don't expect that to happen because, at is
stands now, the firearms homicide rate in the US is much higher than it
is in civilized countries.