In article >,
George > wrote:

> >> Depends on where you keep them locked up. There are any number of gun
> >> safes that are small, hold one gun (pistol) and can be located within
> >> easy reach of wherever you think you might need one. They open only
> >> when the finger pressure is applied in the proper sequence to the five
> >> keys on the cover.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >
> > If they work.
> >
> > Under duress...
> >
> > The best way to kidproof the guns is to gunproof the kids.
> > That is how dad did it and and my sister and I are still alive.
>
> But isn't that the job of the government to keep you safe?
>
> How dare your dad interfere with the good works of the government...

<snork>

Right.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George Shirley > wrote:

> On 4/26/2010 10:33 PM, Omelet wrote:
> > In >,
> > George > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/26/2010 12:11 AM, Omelet wrote:
> >>> In >,
> >>> "Dave > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
> >>>>>> property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves
> >>>>>> a .22 Ruger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Model 96 lever action?
> >>>>
> >>>> That is a sweet rifle, but no, it is a 10/22 with a holographic sight
> >>>> containing a lighted reticle.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dave
> >>>
> >>> I'm considering looking in to red dot sights for my .22.
> >>> Remington Nylon 66 semi-auto.
> >> Ooo! Black or brown?
> >
> > Black. :-)
> Fairly rare then, many more of the brown nylons were sold. Good rifles
> though, I sold many of them through Guns 'n Gadgets* back in the day.
> *Gunshop I owned and operated for 20 years.

Very cool. :-)
The only issue is that the stock got broken in the front and it's
difficult to repair Nylon. Black electrical tape is currently keeping it
in place so it looks a bit "tacky", but it shoots straight and makes
good groupings.

I've had it since I was 14.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-04-27, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article
> >,
> > itsjoannotjoann > wrote:
>
> >> My pistol is about 11 or 12 years old.
>
>
> > Transfer bars vary from revolver to revolver.
> > Is yours outfitted with one?
>
> They were putting xfer bars on guns long before that. My Super
> Blackhawk was an '86 and it had one. That's almost 25 yrs ago.
>
> Damn, I miss that gun.
>
> nb

So why did you sell it?

There is a transfer bar on my Ruger Redhawk but I'm not sure how old it
is.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Food Snob® > wrote:

> On Apr 25, 4:33*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > * * * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend
> > themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their
> > gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of
> > the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
> >
> This is one issue on which I disagree with many fellow progressives.
> When a citizen kills an intruder, I think that is a beautiful thing.
> Not tragic, but beautiful. I don't personally keep a gun, but I live
> in a very safe area, and anyway, my wife would strongly object.
> >
> > --
> > Peace! Om
> >
> --Bryan

Plus it's messy and biohazardous, and complicates one's life with court
dates with a grand jury.

I'd just as soon scare someone off as shoot them.

Truly.

For many reasons...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
itsjoannotjoann > wrote:

> On Apr 26, 10:43*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> > *itsjoannotjoann > wrote:
> > *And yes, I do have a carry permit. *Took the gun
> > > safety course and all that came with and paid all fees. *Permits here
> > > are good for 4 years for $50.
> >
> > Cost me a bit more than that, but I have the carry permit too.
> > Have not turned in my paperwork yet for the NRA instructors permit...
> >
> > That one was far more expensive, but enlightening!
> >
> > Peace! Om
> >
> >
> If I remember correctly the course was around $160, maybe a bit more
> but still under $200.

I took more than one course.

All total, with the Hotel bill for two nights, ran me a bit over $500.00.

As soon as I get around to finishing the take home RSO (Range Safety
Officer) course, I will turn in my paperwork.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
itsjoannotjoann > wrote:

> On Apr 26, 11:14*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"Steve B" > wrote:
> >
> > > My pistol is about 11 or 12 years old.
> >
> > > What exactly is it? *I will ask on rec.guns and find out if it is one of
> > > the
> > > newer safer ones.
> >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Learn about structure.
> > Look and see if it has a transfer bar. That will tell you.
> > The hammer does not directly hit the firing pin. A bar of metal comes up
> > as you press the trigger and the bar actually presses the firing pin.
> >
> > The hammer can rest on top of a chamber with no danger.
> >
> > The hammer is offset. *I hope that makes sense and if not, I'm sure that
> > there is a diagram you can google for!
> >
> > My Ruger Redhawk is pretty old and it has that feature.
> >
> > Peace! Om
> >
> >
> No, my hammer actually hits directly on the firing pin.

Then you need to load only 5 rounds and keep the hammer down over an
empty chamber.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Obviously, people who carry guns for self-defense are dangerous,
> to themselves and to the rest of the population, whether they are
> criminals or law-abiding citizens. The willful wearing of
> weapons is the line at which I cease to distinguish between them.

Why?

>
> To insist that a line written 200 years ago by poofy men in
> powdered wigs grants you right of life and death over anyone you
> encounter on a case by case basis is the height of hubris one has
> come to recognize as the USAian delusional trait par excellence.

So we don't have a right to have a weapon of self defense available in
case of a violent attack?

I don't understand your reasoning.

I'm not trained in martial arts, I'm middle aged and out of shape and
not able to defend myself in any other reasonable manner.

Am I just supposed to lay down and be a victim?

Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her own panty
hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an officer how her
attacker got that bullet wound?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

Omelet > wrote in
news
> In article >,
> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
>> The
>> willful wearing of weapons is the line at which I cease to
>> distinguish between them.
>
> Why?

I would think that would be obvious. People who carry guns
(whether criminals or not) are willing to inflict bodily harm on
others.

>> To insist that a line written 200 years ago by poofy men in
>> powdered wigs grants you right of life and death over anyone
>> you encounter on a case by case basis is the height of hubris
>> one has come to recognize as the USAian delusional trait par
>> excellence.
>
> So we don't have a right to have a weapon of self defense
> available in case of a violent attack?

No, you don't, because the basic premise is that a piece of paper
gives you justification and that piece of paper does not say what
you think it says. In fact it says the opposite.

> I don't understand your reasoning.

Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.

> I'm not trained in martial arts, I'm middle aged and out of
> shape and not able to defend myself in any other reasonable
> manner.
>
> Am I just supposed to lay down and be a victim?

I'm 63, have never carried a weapon and never felt any need to.
I don't understand YOUR reasoning.

> Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her
> own panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an
> officer how her attacker got that bullet wound?

Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.

--
"When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
govern."

Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > "Steve B" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> >> news > >> > In article >,
> >> > Sqwertz > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Shut the **** up. All of you.
> >> >>
> >> >> -sw
> >> >
> >> > You're just jealous 'cause you don't own one. ;-)
> >> > --
> >> > Peace! Om
> >>
> >> Small error. He's not ALLOWED to own one. Small difference.
> >>
> >> Steve ;-)
> >
> > How so? I was not aware of that distinction.
> > Or if I was, I don't announce such confidences in public.
> > --
> > Peace! Om
>
> People with mental problems are not allowed to purchase, own, or carry a
> concealed gun?
>
> Steve

That's a bit over the top...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> WTF wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:48:06 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Homicide makes up a fraction of violent crime stats, which are a more
> >> complete measure of risk to an unarmed society. For example, Rape is
> >> at a higher rate per capita in Canada than in the U.S. The U.K.
> >> leads America in robbery.
> >
> >
> >
> > Only year stats are completely available is 2006
>
> 2008 for the U.S.
>
> > Homicide
> ....snip
>
> I stated that homicide is only one fraction of the total violent crime
> statistics. Nothing you provided changes my previous point.

And what about non-gun homicides and assaults?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > HeyBub wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree that using "Black Komodo Ultra Atomic Devastation
> > >> Ammunition, Now Fortified With Chlorophyll and Retsin" rounds are
> > >> probably not a good public-relations move, but using something with
> > >> "Safety" in its name is a definite plus. Further, I'll bet Glaser
> > >> would provide expert testimony on your behalf to avoid the
> > >> reputation hit should you be found guilty based on your choice of
> > >> ammunition. And the obvious answer to the claim I intentionally wanted
> > >> to
> > >> "splatter the victim's blood all over the place," is "You goddamn
> > >> right! And I hope he rots in Hell!"
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a prime example of the attitude that I have trouble with. This
> > > is the sort of person who gives me the impression that he is just
> > > dying to get the chance to shoot someone in self defence<?>.
> >
> > Fer chrissakes, Dave, HeyBub is being facetious; you do recognize the
> > quoted
> > line as from one of Samuel L. Jackson's movies don't you? You also realize
> > that no round is actually fortified with Fortified With Chlorophyll and
> > Retsin, right? Heybub is a long-time regular on tx.guns. How it got
> > crossposted, I haven't a clue.
>
> Om, of course. She lives in Texas, and although the thread started off
> OT, it quickly veered farther and farther from general gun self-defense,
> to specifics about what ammo to use, so she said she would take it to a
> real gun group.

'scuse me, but it was not me this time!

**** off please.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"argus tuft" > wrote:

> Handguns are designed to kill people.

Actually, it's not uncommon for people to carry them when out hunting as
backup and to kill snakes.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On May 1, 7:32*pm, "OstenFaygo" > wrote:

> Did you ever shoot yourself in the foot?

Only figuratively.

You'd be surprised how much you don't really need
a gun if you're witty, and avoid low lifes.

That being said, I carry hollow points in my semiauto.

---
Mark

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> > Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her
> > own panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an
> > officer how her attacker got that bullet wound?
>
> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.

So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the attacker being
dead?

Please explain...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 2010-05-02, Omelet > wrote:

> So why did you sell it?

Hard times.

Life is a bit better now. I want to replace a few of the firearms I
lost. One is the 44 mag. Damned if I wasn't put off by this gun the
first couple decades I owned it, but just prior to my selling it I was
beginning to have some fun and enjoy it. Plus, I still got a buncha
ammo!


nb

On 2010-05-02, Mort > wrote:

> I fully agree. Hunting is a way of acquiring ingredients.
> I have a freezer full of wild boar meat to prove it.

Boy, howdy!

I moved to CO, a state with the most bizarre hunting regs and almost
no boars. I gotta wait for the deer to move so I can park at the
local supermarket, but can't shoot 'em and NO PIGS! CO at 8K ft is a
hoot, but weird.

nb

On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:22:30 -0700, Mort > wrote:

>Dan Abel wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
>>
>> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
>> argument before!
>>
>
>Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
>
>In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
>would be achieved with 00.
>
>Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
>shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
>around for home defense.
>
>PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
>to minimum damage to the target.

Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.

Ron

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> > > Retsin, right? Heybub is a long-time regular on tx.guns. How it got
> > > crossposted, I haven't a clue.
> >
> > Om, of course. She lives in Texas, and although the thread started off
> > OT, it quickly veered farther and farther from general gun self-defense,
> > to specifics about what ammo to use, so she said she would take it to a
> > real gun group.
>
> 'scuse me, but it was not me this time!

Did I misread the thread? Were you forged?

> **** off please.

Why the hostility?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2010-05-02, Omelet > wrote:
> In article
>,
> Dan Abel > wrote:

>> Om, of course. She lives in Texas, and although the thread started off
>> OT, it quickly veered farther and farther from general gun self-defense,
>> to specifics about what ammo to use, so she said she would take it to a
>> real gun group.

Back off, Dan. This group is OT certified. If you don't like it,
don't participate.

> 'scuse me, but it was not me this time!
>
> **** off please.

Not to appear to be coming to your defense, Om, as you certainly don't
need it, but it's getting a bit thick, here.

People, you best get a freakin' clue.

The 2nd amendment was not about militias or right-to-carry or all that
other lame gun ownershipt rhetoric crap. The great authors of the
Bill of Rights knew their own history. That history included the fear
that GOVERNMENT, the very govt they were creating in this new World,
might eventually evolve into the very same thing they despised and
eschewed and were revolting against. The 2nd amendment gives THE
PEOPLE of these here United States of America the right of freedom
against their own government!! If you don't see that and are
unwilling to realize your own responsibility to protect it, you don't
deserve the freedoms you now enjoy.

nb

Ron wrote:

> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
> the door was going to be a bird.

I haven't been reading this thread (because I find it even more boring than
amandaF's interest in "hern choppers"), but I checked in to see if there was
something interesting going on, and this made me chuckle.

Wasn't Big Dick Cheney's gun loaded with bird shot when he shot that guy in
the face?

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
>> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
>> the door was going to be a bird.
>
> I haven't been reading this thread (because I find it even more boring
> than amandaF's interest in "hern choppers"), but I checked in to see if
> there was something interesting going on, and this made me chuckle.
>
> Wasn't Big Dick Cheney's gun loaded with bird shot when he shot that guy
> in the face?
>
> Bob


Yes, but there are different sizes of birdshot. Dickie was shooting
a 28 guage with small shot. If he'd been using something like high
brass (magnum) turkey loads in a 20 or 12 guage*, that old lawyer he
shot probably wouldn't have gotten back up.

(I can't believe this thread is still going)

*or 16 ga, or 10, etc.

Bob

On May 1, 8:17*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article >,
> *"argus tuft" > wrote:
>
> > Handguns are designed to kill people.
>
> Actually, it's not uncommon for people to carry them when out hunting as
> backup and to kill snakes.

And bears. Especially bears, though in your neck o' the woods, I
guess it's snakes.

> --
> Peace! Om

--Bryan

Ron wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:22:30 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
>>>
>>> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
>>> argument before!
>>>
>>
>> Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
>>
>> In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
>> would be achieved with 00.
>>
>> Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
>> shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
>> around for home defense.
>>
>> PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
>> to minimum damage to the target.
>
> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
> the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
> Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.


He's 100% wrong. No surprise. Some of the least well informed people
on the subject of firearms are police.

When I took the qualification courses for the Sherrif's Dept
in a certain California county, the instructors didn't have a clue
what they were talking about when it comes to firearms. I did.
I knew how much of what they were saying about things related
to ballistics because I do my own reloading as well as field
testing.

Check this out. They even repeated the old wives tale about how
a .357 round can penetrate an engine block. Utter BS. I've tried
it. They barely leave a scratch.

So please... don't tell me you know something about guns because
a cop told you.

--
Mort

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-05-02, Omelet > wrote:
>
> > So why did you sell it?
>
> Hard times.
>
> Life is a bit better now. I want to replace a few of the firearms I
> lost. One is the 44 mag. Damned if I wasn't put off by this gun the
> first couple decades I owned it, but just prior to my selling it I was
> beginning to have some fun and enjoy it. Plus, I still got a buncha
> ammo!
>
>
> nb

Keep your eyes peeled on the firearms forums. :-)
Sometimes you can get a good deal when others are selling for the same
reason. I bought a Glock 19 for dad a couple of years ago with a built
in laser site that way...

Revolvers tend to be a bit less expensive than semi-autos.

Good hunting!


Dad sometimes pawned his rifles when in a financial bind, but he never
actually sold them.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-05-02, Mort > wrote:
>
> > I fully agree. Hunting is a way of acquiring ingredients.
> > I have a freezer full of wild boar meat to prove it.
>
> Boy, howdy!
>
> I moved to CO, a state with the most bizarre hunting regs and almost
> no boars. I gotta wait for the deer to move so I can park at the
> local supermarket, but can't shoot 'em and NO PIGS! CO at 8K ft is a
> hoot, but weird.
>
> nb

Iirc, next to California, Colorado has some of the tightest hunting laws
in the US! We were kinda shocked when we moved to Texas and found that
it was not only legal, but common to put out deer feeders and set up a
blind instead of hunting on foot the hard way.

Turns out the reason why is that the Texas white tail is so prolific,
they are considered to be pests in some areas. <g> Pretty things. There
is a small herd in our neighborhood that often grazes across the street
from me. City deer are always protected as one cannot use firearms
within city limits so they breed with no controls as there are really no
predators in the city. They do get hit by cars from time to time.

There is a gorgeous 8 point buck I see from time to time out behind my
back yard.

It is also not illegal to fish with a fish attractor light or run trot
lines. Both of those are not legal in Colorado.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
Ron > wrote:

> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:22:30 -0700, Mort > wrote:
>
> >Dan Abel wrote:
> >> In >,
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
> >>
> >> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
> >> argument before!
> >>
> >
> >Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
> >
> >In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
> >would be achieved with 00.
> >
> >Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
> >shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
> >around for home defense.
> >
> >PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
> >to minimum damage to the target.
>
> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
> the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
> Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.
>
> Ron

At close range, bird shot can be devastating as the pellets have not yet
had time to spread out. But, I agree that buckshot is better. I've
done a lot of reading on the subject and safety is as important to me as
survival. That is why I've settled on #3.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2010-05-02, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article
> >,
> > Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >> Om, of course. She lives in Texas, and although the thread started off
> >> OT, it quickly veered farther and farther from general gun self-defense,
> >> to specifics about what ammo to use, so she said she would take it to a
> >> real gun group.
>
> Back off, Dan. This group is OT certified. If you don't like it,
> don't participate.
>
> > 'scuse me, but it was not me this time!
> >
> > **** off please.
>
> Not to appear to be coming to your defense, Om, as you certainly don't
> need it, but it's getting a bit thick, here.
>
> People, you best get a freakin' clue.
>
> The 2nd amendment was not about militias or right-to-carry or all that
> other lame gun ownershipt rhetoric crap. The great authors of the
> Bill of Rights knew their own history. That history included the fear
> that GOVERNMENT, the very govt they were creating in this new World,
> might eventually evolve into the very same thing they despised and
> eschewed and were revolting against. The 2nd amendment gives THE
> PEOPLE of these here United States of America the right of freedom
> against their own government!! If you don't see that and are
> unwilling to realize your own responsibility to protect it, you don't
> deserve the freedoms you now enjoy.
>
> nb

Thanks nb.

I fear that too many people do indeed forget history. And are doomed to
repeat it.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Food Snob® > wrote:

> On May 1, 8:17*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *"argus tuft" > wrote:
> >
> > > Handguns are designed to kill people.
> >
> > Actually, it's not uncommon for people to carry them when out hunting as
> > backup and to kill snakes.
>
> And bears. Especially bears, though in your neck o' the woods, I
> guess it's snakes.
>
> --Bryan

No, no bears here in Texas. A fact that I am glad about! Besides, it
takes at least a .50 caliber to stop a bear (or so I've read) and a
lucky shot at that. They are unpredictable, powerful and dangerous.

There are a few rattlesnakes but I think the annual roundups keep their
numbers down.

I was advised to carry the 9mm with snake shot in it when I was up in
Hereford Texas varmint hunting.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> > **** off please.
>
> Why the hostility?
>
> --
> Dan Abel

I apologize. I was in a very bad mood and I did not recall starting the
crossposting in this thread. It's been a rough week at the new job.

I should not take it out on you though...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
Mort > wrote:

> > Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
> > told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
> > the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
> > Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.
>
>
> He's 100% wrong. No surprise. Some of the least well informed people
> on the subject of firearms are police.
>
> When I took the qualification courses for the Sherrif's Dept
> in a certain California county, the instructors didn't have a clue
> what they were talking about when it comes to firearms. I did.
> I knew how much of what they were saying about things related
> to ballistics because I do my own reloading as well as field
> testing.
>
> Check this out. They even repeated the old wives tale about how
> a .357 round can penetrate an engine block. Utter BS. I've tried
> it. They barely leave a scratch.
>
> So please... don't tell me you know something about guns because
> a cop told you.
>
> --
> Mort

Good advice. :-)
Writings by Massad Ayoob are some that I do follow tho' as he has tons
of actual research and experience behind him.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

Omelet > wrote in
news
>> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.
>
> So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the
> attacker being dead?

You are only positing a universe within which the possible
outcomes are either A or B. There are many other options open to
you, including moving out of this area you live in. Obviously,
this must have occurred to you.

The issue here is that you are willing to kill innocent
bystanders to ensure your own personal safety. By your own
admission:

> I'm not trained in martial arts, I'm middle aged and out of
> shape and not able to defend myself in any other reasonable
> manner.

I daresay that your quick reflexes are also failing, which means
that when you pull out that gat, anyone around you could die,
including yourself. The fact that you are even carrying a
firearm implies premeditated intent to commit grievous bodily
harm, possibly even murder.

--

"When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
govern."

Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

On 5/1/2010 7:32 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In article<G7udnWmEJY4dU0vWnZ2dnUVZ_rMAAAAA@giganews. com>,
> George > wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2010 10:33 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> George > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/26/2010 12:11 AM, Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In >,
>>>>> "Dave > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
>>>>>>>> property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves
>>>>>>>> a .22 Ruger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Model 96 lever action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a sweet rifle, but no, it is a 10/22 with a holographic sight
>>>>>> containing a lighted reticle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm considering looking in to red dot sights for my .22.
>>>>> Remington Nylon 66 semi-auto.
>>>> Ooo! Black or brown?
>>>
>>> Black. :-)
>> Fairly rare then, many more of the brown nylons were sold. Good rifles
>> though, I sold many of them through Guns 'n Gadgets* back in the day.
>> *Gunshop I owned and operated for 20 years.
>
> Very cool. :-)
> The only issue is that the stock got broken in the front and it's
> difficult to repair Nylon. Black electrical tape is currently keeping it
> in place so it looks a bit "tacky", but it shoots straight and makes
> good groupings.
>
> I've had it since I was 14.

My Dad bought me a .22 when I was five years old, a Winchester Model
1906 pump gun, he paid 5 bucks for it in a hock shop in Beaumont, TX.
That would be about 1944, amazing that it hadn't been sent to the UK to
fend off the ravening Huns.

I had it until my son went off to college in 1981, he took it with him
to plink a squirrel or two and it was stolen from his apartment. Have
never seen hide nor hair of it since. I miss that gun.

On 5/1/2010 11:47 PM, Mort wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:22:30 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
>>>> argument before!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
>>>
>>> In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
>>> would be achieved with 00.
>>>
>>> Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
>>> shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
>>> around for home defense.
>>>
>>> PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
>>> to minimum damage to the target.
>>
>> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
>> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
>> the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
>> Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.
>
>
> He's 100% wrong. No surprise. Some of the least well informed people
> on the subject of firearms are police.
>
> When I took the qualification courses for the Sherrif's Dept
> in a certain California county, the instructors didn't have a clue
> what they were talking about when it comes to firearms. I did.
> I knew how much of what they were saying about things related
> to ballistics because I do my own reloading as well as field
> testing.
>
> Check this out. They even repeated the old wives tale about how
> a .357 round can penetrate an engine block. Utter BS. I've tried
> it. They barely leave a scratch.
>
> So please... don't tell me you know something about guns because
> a cop told you.
>

We have one here who failed to qualify recently, he's now serving court
papers sans pistola. What kind of help is that?

On 5/2/2010 2:29 AM, Omelet wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:22:30 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
>>>> argument before!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
>>>
>>> In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
>>> would be achieved with 00.
>>>
>>> Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
>>> shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
>>> around for home defense.
>>>
>>> PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
>>> to minimum damage to the target.
>>
>> Which reminds me... an acquaintance of ours is a policeman, and he
>> told us we could use bird shot if we thought the first thing through
>> the door was going to be a bird. For people, he recommended No. 2
>> Buck Shot. Maximum damage, minimum wall penetration. YMMV.
>>
>> Ron
>
> At close range, bird shot can be devastating as the pellets have not yet
> had time to spread out. But, I agree that buckshot is better. I've
> done a lot of reading on the subject and safety is as important to me as
> survival. That is why I've settled on #3.

I did a lot of testing on sheetrock walls years ago, full studs, headers
and footers and 5/8 inch sheetrock on both sides, standard in most
houses. A 20 gauge pump gun, 20-inch barrel was used. Number 5 shot
would penetrate one side of the wall but not the other at ten feet
distance. Ten feet was chosen as the maximum/minimum distance to engage
an intruder. Any shot larger than #5 would penetrate both walls.

Incidentally, we used #5 shot in 12 gauge shotguns for riot control when
I was an officer in the Texas State Guard. Aimed at the feet of rioters
the flattened pellets would go through a crowd at about crotch height.
Was supposed to discourage them and they would go home. Never got a
chance to test that theory but it sure sounded good. This was in the
mid-sixties.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
>>> Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her
>>> own panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an
>>> officer how her attacker got that bullet wound?
>> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.
>
> So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the attacker being
> dead?
>
> Please explain...

It that morality of paranoia. Most normal people around here just don't
spend much of their lives fretting about being in such fear of their
lives that they have to have a gun to protect themselves.

On 5/2/2010 9:17 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>
>>>> Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her
>>>> own panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an
>>>> officer how her attacker got that bullet wound?
>>> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.
>>
>> So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the attacker being
>> dead?
>>
>> Please explain...
>
> It that morality of paranoia. Most normal people around here just don't
> spend much of their lives fretting about being in such fear of their
> lives that they have to have a gun to protect themselves.

You could look at it that way and try to use the typical everyone is a
nut if they think differently than you paintbrush or you could realize
it isn't any different than having a spare tire in your car or extra
flashlights. Things happen. I am not paranoid about a flat tire but it
sure is nice to know I have an option. I am not paranoid about the power
going out but it is nice to know there is a good flashlight in the
drawer. I am not paranoid about being attacked or robbed but it is nice
to know I am prepared to do something about that too.

Mort wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The shotgun with #3 buck to minimize wall penetration.
>>
>> Don't you mean *maximize* wall penetration? I think we've had this
>> argument before!
>>
>
> Maximum penetration would be deer slugs.
>
> In the buckshot category, maximum penetration
> would be achieved with 00.
>
> Minimum penetration would be achieved using the smallest
> shot available, which is bird shot. That's what I keep
> around for home defense.
>
> PS - Minimum penetration does not in any way translate
> to minimum damage to the target.
>
A while back sitting in front of the Tv on a cool Sunday afternoon
around 6 pm with the evening meal on a tray I spied a huge bush rat
which had just crept under the screen door into the living room and as
luck would have it I had been cleaning the wifes 357 m28 S+W , a quick
cocking and a nailed that rodent with a small shot round most effectivly
Of course it also killed some carpet and I was in rouble again for
letting one go in the house

ah good times

Dave Smith > wrote in
om:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>
>>>> Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with
>>>> her own panty hose is morally superior to a woman
>>>> explaining to an officer how her attacker got that bullet
>>>> wound?
>>>
>>> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.
>>
>> So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the
>> attacker being dead?
>>
>> Please explain...
>
> It that morality of paranoia. Most normal people around here
> just don't spend much of their lives fretting about being in
> such fear of their lives that they have to have a gun to
> protect themselves.

Yeah, my bad...eh? :-)

--

"When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
govern."

Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

In article >,
Michel Boucher > wrote:

> Omelet > wrote in
> news >
> >> Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.
> >
> > So it's more moral for me to be a dead victim than the
> > attacker being dead?
>
> You are only positing a universe within which the possible
> outcomes are either A or B. There are many other options open to
> you, including moving out of this area you live in. Obviously,
> this must have occurred to you.

Chances of violent attacks are not universally geographic.
There is no crime in my neighborhood at this present time but if the
economic downturn continues, that could change. I've taken other steps
for home security including full fencing and pet dogs. My dogs are not
mean per se', but an invader is not going to know that.

Traveling at night into Austin is more risky than where I live.

>
> The issue here is that you are willing to kill innocent
> bystanders to ensure your own personal safety. By your own
> admission:

'scuse me, but if you'd read my posts, you'd see that my choice of ammo
contradicts that! Not only would I feel terrible about killing an
innocent bystander, even the Castle Doctrine does not protect one from
prosecution for doing so.

Frankly, I'd rather run than fight if that were an option. But, I am
incapable of running.

>
> > I'm not trained in martial arts, I'm middle aged and out of
> > shape and not able to defend myself in any other reasonable
> > manner.
>
> I daresay that your quick reflexes are also failing, which means
> that when you pull out that gat, anyone around you could die,
> including yourself. The fact that you are even carrying a
> firearm implies premeditated intent to commit grievous bodily
> harm, possibly even murder.

So I'd be standing on better moral ground to choose to be a dead or
injured victim rather than being able to defend myself?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George Shirley > wrote:

> > I've had it since I was 14.
>
> My Dad bought me a .22 when I was five years old, a Winchester Model
> 1906 pump gun, he paid 5 bucks for it in a hock shop in Beaumont, TX.
> That would be about 1944, amazing that it hadn't been sent to the UK to
> fend off the ravening Huns.
>
> I had it until my son went off to college in 1981, he took it with him
> to plink a squirrel or two and it was stolen from his apartment. Have
> never seen hide nor hair of it since. I miss that gun.

That's a shame. :-(
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine