On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Sandi wrote:

>
> Lena B Katz wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Sandi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.food.cooking, Lena B Katz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. So you're telling me you've got a better solution
> to
>>> twelve
>>>>>> year olds on motorcycles with assault rifles shooting your
> family?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not yet found that my neighborhood twelve year olds ride
>>>>> motorcycles. Much less shoot guns. Much less assault rifles.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. You're gonna care about laws when kids are shooting the
>>> neighborhood
>>>> with assault rifles? Get real.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to get real. 12 year old "kids" with "assault" rifles?
>>> Gimme a
>>> break.
>>
>> You want pictures? Just go google them. It hit the front page, and
> was
>> on TV. Try looking under Rwanda.
>> One of my friends lost quite a
>> few friends to kids
>> like that.
>
> This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US...not in
> Rwanda. You need to try staying with the actual conversation instead of
> hijacking it.

Sorry. I'm bad about that.

> Pictures? Seen them and live them. I live in a third
> world country that has a major violence problem, an overabundance of
> automatic and semiautomatic weapons and is a receiving point for Mara
> Salvatruchas deported from the US. You do know who the Maras are don't
> you?

....googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV, no
Radio.) I see.

>You do know about the December bus massacre of women and children?
> the barbershop massacre a few days after that?
> the several hijackings
> of private vehicles in the weeks after the barbershop?

Perhaps I should think about adding another place onto the "OMG Is she
okay" list. (Honduras, if google's telling me straight).

>>> 16 or 17 year old gang bangers with semiautomatic weapson are
>>> not "kids with assault rifles." I live in gang banger heaven here.
> The
>>> "kids" seem to favor old revolvers....it's only the more "mature"
> 16
>>> year olds and above and up that have moved into semiautomatic and
>>> automatic weapons.
>>
>> What do you do to defend yourself?
>>
>
> Why do you think I'm so paranoid that I need to defend myself?

You're posting here. Therefore, you're probably in the top 5% of "richest
people". A natural target for agression. Your methods of defending
yourself may be as simple as "being a good person" and "helping elderly
people cross the street". but if i were in your shoes, i'd be thinking
about security.

> However,
> should the need arise, the appropriate technology is readily available.

So, how much does a reasonably good gun run? ;-) (sorry for mixing parts
of the thread).

>>> BTW, do you even know the difference between a
>>> semiautomatic weapon and an assault weapon. It sure seems that you
>>> don't.
>>
>> Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
>> definition.
>
> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
> what an assault rifle is.

I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of armored
cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
coming with explosive bullets.

Lena

Lena B Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Sandi wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps I should think about adding another place onto the "OMG Is
she
> okay" list. (Honduras, if google's telling me straight).

Google is telling you straight. I teach school in central Honduras.

>
> You're posting here. Therefore, you're probably in the top 5% of
"richest
> people". A natural target for agression. Your methods of defending
> yourself may be as simple as "being a good person" and "helping
elderly
> people cross the street". but if i were in your shoes, i'd be
thinking
> about security.

At a whopping $400 US dollars a month plus a small VA disability, I am
hardly in the top 5% of rich people in town. Not exactly a target for
kidnapping of violent armed robbery. I'm closer to the bottom edge of
the extremely small middle class. My students are the ones who are in
the top 5% (at least in this area) and they don't even come near to the
actual top 5% in the country. I'm quite aware of security and the SO
spent 20 years working in Corrections/Criminal Justice (cop,
corrections officer)
>
> > However,
> > should the need arise, the appropriate technology is readily
available.
>
> So, how much does a reasonably good gun run? ;-) (sorry for mixing
parts
> of the thread).

The overal cost depends on where you are - taxes, import duties,
licensing fees, etc. My costs are not valid since I bought my stuff
over 18 years years ago. At various times I've had a.308 rifle with a
Leupold scope, a British .303 rifle, Winchester 12 gauge shotgun, and a
..22 pistol and my late husband had a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Magnum (a
signle action revolver).

Sandi

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, zxcvbob wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
>> assault rifles generally means AK-47s.
>>
>> Lena
>
> I gave a working definition of assault rifle a couple of days ago. "Assault
> rifle" is a legitimate military term for a class of machine gun. "Assault
> weapon" is a humpty dumpty* term that means whatever its user wants it to
> mean at the time -- usually meaning something like an AK-47, which is a
> semiautomatic rifle that kind of looks like an assault rifle. The AK-47 is
> ballistically similar to (but a little less powerful than) a .30-30 deer
> rifle.

Thanks!

Lena

Sandi writes:
>
>This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US.

This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the US

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> Sandi writes:
> >
> >This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US.
>
> This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the
US
>
> Sheldon

Actual or alleged...it was in the US and not Rwanda.

Sandi

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...

>
> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV, no
> Radio.) I see.

How old are you????

By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed. You
have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.





>>
>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>> what an assault rifle is.
>
> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of armored
> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
> coming with explosive bullets.

Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.

Lena B Katz wrote:

> So, how much does a reasonably good gun run? ;-) (sorry for mixing parts
> of the thread).

Rifle, shotgun, or pistol?

Let's put in in the context of your $30 lowball guess.

Surplus Moslin-Nagent rifles can be had for less than $100 -- quite a
bit less. The 7.62x54R ammo is fairly cheap too, and quite powerful. I
assume these rifles are in shootable condition (once you strip them down
and clean out all the cosmolene). Don't remove the bayonet unless you
just absolutely have to because doing so screws up the accuracy (I don't
know why.) I almost bought one last year for about $60 just to take it
apart and see what makes them tick.

Hi Point .380 pistols are about $100. I'm not sure what Makarov 9mm's
run, but probably about the same. Another interesting pistol for $100
is the CZ-52. It shoots a 7.62x29 submachine gun cartridge that will
penetrate most body armor. Do not dry fire a CZ-52 or you will break
the firing pin. Other than that, they are supposed to be quite sturdy
and accurate.

If you are really lucky, you might can find a cheap .38 Special revolver
at a police auction, but they might be all gone by now. This would be a
big "service revolver", not something you could conceal very easily.

If you want a very good gun with readily available ammo, I like Browning
Hi Powers in 9mm. $300 for a good used one or an Argentina or Canadian
copy. Again, this is a full size "service pistol".

I paid $200 for a very nice Ruger Blackhawk .30 revolver last fall, but
a lot of people don't like single-action revolvers. I like them; you
cock the hammer, pull the trigger, and they go BANG!, every time.

I don't know what shotguns cost, but a Remington or Mossberg shotgun
from Wal-Mart is perhaps your most firepower for the money. #1 buckshot
is very effective, but you still have to aim. Get a 12 gauge or a 20 gauge.


Best regards,
Bob <-- did a lot of shopping before buying the Ruger and a FM Hi Power

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:49:05 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
> wrote:

>
>
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Custom AP bullets are also reality. I'm not going to discuss the
>>> strategic ramifications of custom AP bullets, because they aren't really
>>> relevant.

>Perhaps you might care to explain what you would mean by "custom"...
>rather than assuming that I don't know what it means.
>
>I guess that anything that isn't hollowpoint, and is special made, is
>probably custom (Silver bullets included). The sort I was talking about
>explode on contact, blasting chunks of chest apart. Very different from
>normal bullet wounds and much harder to fix.
>
>Lena

Lena

I have been in law enforcement for 35 years, I was a fire arms
(and submachine gun) instructor (at the local police academy )for
approx. 20 years. I also taught a S.W.A.T. course.

I have been a shooter in combat type competitions, and have reloaded
ammunition for that reason. I (while) competing have made and fired
over 5000 rounds a year. And yes I have made silver bullets as a gag.

In all those years I have never heard of a mortar attack in the U.S.
And I think that I would have at least heard a hint about it.

AP bullets are Armor Piercing bullets, usually made from a harden
material so they will go through the armor and pierce the flesh below.
They do not explode on contact!

These are a few of the problems that I have with your comments in this
thread. I think that you should explore the knowledge available in
regards to guns and ammunition before you continue in this vain.





Pan Ohco

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>> So, how much does a reasonably good gun run? ;-) (sorry for mixing parts
>> of the thread).
>
> Rifle, shotgun, or pistol?
>
> Let's put in in the context of your $30 lowball guess.

I think she picked $30 because she saw a price like that in a newspaper
article about Saturday night specials, which nobody in their right mind
would buy.

In article >,
Lena B Katz > wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> > What is the price range for a gun whose quality level would be analogous to
> > a Toyota or a Honda? Not a Saturday night special, at one extreme, and not
> > the hand-engraved-with-mother-of-pearl inlays at the other extreme.
> >
> > I eagerly await your answer.
>
> hmm... Let me lowball it at $30.00 USA


But will it take out my brand new US$10,000 Rolls Royce?


:-(


I googled for Ruger, which I would consider the Toyota of handguns, and a
mid-sized revolver runs US$500 on up.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article >, zxcvbob >
wrote:


> I paid $200 for a very nice Ruger Blackhawk .30 revolver last fall, but

I assume used? I just happened to be on the Ruger web page when reading
your post, and they show US$468 for that.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

Sandi wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > Sandi writes:
> > >
> > >This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US.
> >
> > This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the
> US.
> >
> > Sheldon
>
> Actual or alleged...it was in the US and not Rwanda.
>
> Sandi

Um, I said "in the US." Can't you read? Duh

Sheldon

"Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
wrote:

> I have the flu

I hope you're feeling better soon. The flu sucks.

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

"Gregory Morrow"
<gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net>, if that's
their real name, wrote:

>Lena B Katz wrote:
>
>> Dude... didn't you see any of the _other_ boards I'm on? A better one to
>> quote me from would be the wargames board (Particularly since all I ever
>> post to that board about is Rolemaster...). And it fits a bit better with
>> the markedly theoretical bent of my conversation.
>>
>> I must admit, I am rather dismayed at the markedly provincial nature of
>> this board (at least the posters on this thread). You'd think that they'd
>> never traveled _anywhere_!
>
>I think we need to fix you up on a date with Sheldon...we'll all chip in
>so's you can git fitted with a new diaphragm.

So. What's your PayPal address so I can chip in on this? <G>

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

Sheldon wrote:
> Sandi wrote:
> > Sheldon wrote:
> > > Sandi writes:
> > > >
> > > >This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US.
> > >
> > > This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in
the
> > US.
> > >
> > > Sheldon
> >
> > Actual or alleged...it was in the US and not Rwanda.
> >
> > Sandi
>
> Um, I said "in the US." Can't you read? Duh
>
> Sheldon


My original comment was related to the LOCATION of the event described.
The poster in question decided to use crime and violence in Rwanda as a
base for judging how people should react to crime in the US instead of
sticking to the topic of the actual or alleged crime that took place.
Do YOU have a problem interpreting things Shelly?

"Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:

>This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the US

Do you think that Gator is lying?

Carol
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
> >This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the
US
>
> Do you think that Gator is lying?
>
> Carol
> --
> "Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
> 'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
> Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote
me."
>
> *James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_


I don't...and the only thing that may be alleged is rape or
kidnapping...the assault actually occured as I read the post. The only
question was what was the actual intent.

Sandi

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, zxcvbob >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I paid $200 for a very nice Ruger Blackhawk .30 revolver last fall, but
>
>
> I assume used? I just happened to be on the Ruger web page when reading
> your post, and they show US$468 for that.
>


Yes, it was used, but not used very much. I got a really good deal. :-)
The prices you see on Ruger's web site are MSRP. Go to gunbroker.com
for real prices for new and used guns.
Also check out Davidson's web site <http://www.galleryofguns.com> (where
you will see that MSRP again.) When you find a gun you like, click on
the "find a dealer in your area" link to see what you can buy a new one
from a dealer near your zipcode -- with a lifetime warranty from
Davidson's. I found Davidson's by clicking thru a link on one of
Ruger's web pages.

I joined a bullseye target pistol league in February. They won't let
newbies shoot anything buy .22's. I didn't like the loaner guns they
had, and I hated shooting a different gun every week. Rather than get
****ed about it, I bought a new Ruger .22 target pistol from Davidson's
-- model P678GC for about $230. I ordered it on Sunday afternoon, and
it arrived at the local dealer the following Tuesday.

I'm having a lot of fun shooting the .22.

Best regards,
Bob

Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>Do you think that Gator is lying?
It has nothing to do with whether he thinks I'm lying, Damsel. He
does make a good point in that we call it that because we can only
work with what we know. I think I posed earlier that maybe it's
possible the guy was feeling tough and tried a common thing - seeing
if he could scare her, and if so what he could get away with. He
improperly did some stuff that no woman would like - I'm guessing if I
grabbed you in certain and several ways in quick succession, the
police would call it "assault". So, in some ways, he's justified in
calling it "alleged". I'm flexible here. I think he's being logical,
not mean.

AlleyGator wrote:
> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
> >Do you think that Gator is lying?
> It has nothing to do with whether he thinks I'm lying, Damsel. He
> does make a good point in that we call it that because we can only
> work with what we know. I think I posed earlier that maybe it's
> possible the guy was feeling tough and tried a common thing - seeing
> if he could scare her, and if so what he could get away with. He
> improperly did some stuff that no woman would like - I'm guessing if
I
> grabbed you in certain and several ways in quick succession, the
> police would call it "assault". So, in some ways, he's justified in
> calling it "alleged". I'm flexible here. I think he's being
logical,
> not mean.


My comment to Lena was that the assault took place in America, not
Rwanda. She should stick to the incident being described if she wants
to discuss appropriate responses. He jumped on me for my not using
alleged.
I told him it didn't matter if was actuall or alleged, that it ook
place in the US, not Rwanda. I guess he just didn't get that I had a
problem with the change of locations for the purpose of discussing
responses to crime.

Sandi

"Sandi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> AlleyGator wrote:
>> Damsel in dis Dress > wrote:
>> >Do you think that Gator is lying?
>> It has nothing to do with whether he thinks I'm lying, Damsel. He
>> does make a good point in that we call it that because we can only
>> work with what we know. I think I posed earlier that maybe it's
>> possible the guy was feeling tough and tried a common thing - seeing
>> if he could scare her, and if so what he could get away with. He
>> improperly did some stuff that no woman would like - I'm guessing if
> I
>> grabbed you in certain and several ways in quick succession, the
>> police would call it "assault". So, in some ways, he's justified in
>> calling it "alleged". I'm flexible here. I think he's being
> logical,
>> not mean.
>
>
> My comment to Lena was that the assault took place in America, not
> Rwanda. She should stick to the incident being described if she wants
> to discuss appropriate responses. He jumped on me for my not using
> alleged.
> I told him it didn't matter if was actuall or alleged, that it ook
> place in the US, not Rwanda. I guess he just didn't get that I had a
> problem with the change of locations for the purpose of discussing
> responses to crime.
>
> Sandi
>

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this fine point. Sheeeeesh.

"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> "Maverick" >, if that's their real name,
> wrote:
>
>>I belong to the church of Agnostic Apathy. Don't Know, Don't Care.
>>
>>YMMV ;->
>>
>>Sorry, couldn't resist.
>
> You're just a bad boy tonight, aren't you? <G>
>
> Carol

I have my moments! <BEG>

Bret



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...


<<snip crap>>

>>> Well, duh.
>>>
>>>> You can draw your own conclusions about that, but mine
>>>> is that if a burglar enters a home that is occupied, he is fully
>>>> prepared
>>>> and willing to deal with whatever happens.
>>>
>>> mistakes happen. I doubt your house is nearly as prepared to defend
>>> against a robber as you think. (are you a light sleeper?).
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> I'm a heavy sleeper, but I've engineered the noisiest doors and deadbolts
>> you could possibly imagine.
>
> Good lad. All you need now is a few clever traps, and that burglar won't
> even be getting indoors. (traps are a much better way of defending a
> house, because you don't even need to be there to stop the burglar).
>
> Lena

The problem with traps is you have to check them all the time to make sure
they haven't stolen the cheese.

Bret



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Maverick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
>
> <<snip crap>>
>
>>>> Well, duh.
>>>>
>>>>> You can draw your own conclusions about that, but mine
>>>>> is that if a burglar enters a home that is occupied, he is fully
>>>>> prepared
>>>>> and willing to deal with whatever happens.
>>>>
>>>> mistakes happen. I doubt your house is nearly as prepared to defend
>>>> against a robber as you think. (are you a light sleeper?).
>>>>
>>>> Lena
>>>
>>> I'm a heavy sleeper, but I've engineered the noisiest doors and
>>> deadbolts
>>> you could possibly imagine.
>>
>> Good lad. All you need now is a few clever traps, and that burglar won't
>> even be getting indoors. (traps are a much better way of defending a
>> house, because you don't even need to be there to stop the burglar).
>>
>> Lena
>
> The problem with traps is you have to check them all the time to make sure
> they haven't stolen the cheese.
>
> Bret

Lena must not have a life. I could set "traps" around my house. But, which
of the large staff of servants is going to undo them in the morning so I
don't **** off the postman, the UPS guy, the FedEx guy, etc?

What a bunch of crap.

Damsel in dis Dress wrote:

> "Sheldon" >, if that's their real name, wrote:
>
>
>>This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in the US
>
>
> Do you think that Gator is lying?
>
> Carol

Well.. call me a cynic but I've heard these type
stories in person before and at times the
interpretation of the situation varies greatly
from the known facts. Sometimes it is good to take
things (esp online) with a grain of salt? Just my
take, of course.
Goomba

>> It always cracks me up when I see pictures of Jesus Christ. He was
a Jew
>> in the Middle East. They don't look like that. As far as I
remember my
>> history (not much), all caucasians were uncivilized barbarians back
then.

>Right....and the pics make him look like a frat boy from a WASP school
in
>Connecticut. I wonder why the Italians haven't come up with a version
that
l>ooks like Mario Lanza or John Travolta.

The "pics" vary. El Greco's portrait of him in Toledo makes him look
like Osama bin Laden (without the sneer, though).

Neil

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV, no
>> Radio.) I see.
> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed. You
> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.

Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.

>>>
>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>
>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of armored
>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>> coming with explosive bullets.
>
> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.

Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
definition", not a real, military definition.

Lena

p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Sandi wrote:

>
> Sheldon wrote:
>> Sandi wrote:
>>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>> Sandi writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> This conversation started with an assault on a woman in the US.
>>>>
>>>> This conversation started with an ALLEGED assault on a woman in
> the
>>> US.
>>>>
>>>> Sheldon
>>>
>>> Actual or alleged...it was in the US and not Rwanda.
>>>
>>> Sandi
>>
>> Um, I said "in the US." Can't you read? Duh
>>
>> Sheldon
>
>
> My original comment was related to the LOCATION of the event described.
> The poster in question decided to use crime and violence in Rwanda as a
> base for judging how people should react to crime in the US instead of
> sticking to the topic of the actual or alleged crime that took place.
> Do YOU have a problem interpreting things Shelly?

Apparently you missed my comment about how looking like you've got a gun
is probably enough protection for the kid (predators profile, like
everyone else).

OTOH, "crime in the US" is not restricted to muggings nor rapes. When we
start talking about something a bit more _rational_(on the criminal's
part), the appropriate reactions become markedly different.

I don't think anyone in this thread is gonna argue about the US having
Mafia. If the Mafia orders you killed, your best reaction is a little
bit different than if Jack-with-a-knife wants you to give him your money.

But, regardless, murder is still a crime in the US.

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
>>> assault rifles generally means AK-47s.
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> I gave a working definition of assault rifle a couple of days ago.
>> "Assault rifle" is a legitimate military term for a class of machine gun.
>> "Assault weapon" is a humpty dumpty* term that means whatever its user
>> wants it to mean at the time -- usually meaning something like an AK-47,
>> which is a semiautomatic rifle that kind of looks like an assault rifle.
>> The AK-47 is ballistically similar to (but a little less powerful than) a
>> .30-30 deer rifle.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bob
>>
>> *Humpty Dumpty, in _Through The Looking Glass_, paid his words extra so
>> they would mean what he wanted.
>>
>
> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
> cockamamie statement:
>
> "Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
> definition."
>
> I can "take out" a car with my .45 revolver or .40 S&W semi-auto, but no
> matter what angle I hold them at and no matter how much I squint, neither of
> them looks anything like an assault rifle. Matter of fact, I have a really
> nice Smith & Hawken pitchfork with which I could easily puncture 4 holes in
> a car's radiator. Was this garden tool mislabeled in the catalog? Is it
> really an assault rifle?

no. when I said "take out" a car, I did not mean just sending a bullet
straight through the car. I meant "disable the car for future use."

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
>>> assault rifles generally means AK-47s.
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> I gave a working definition of assault rifle a couple of days ago.
>> "Assault rifle" is a legitimate military term for a class of machine gun.
>> "Assault weapon" is a humpty dumpty* term that means whatever its user
>> wants it to mean at the time -- usually meaning something like an AK-47,
>> which is a semiautomatic rifle that kind of looks like an assault rifle.
>> The AK-47 is ballistically similar to (but a little less powerful than) a
>> .30-30 deer rifle.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bob
>>
>> *Humpty Dumpty, in _Through The Looking Glass_, paid his words extra so
>> they would mean what he wanted.
>>
>
> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
> cockamamie statement:

While you're at it, kindly justify your "cockamamie" statement about
2seconds to fire in a combat situation. I think you've rather forgotten
about the startle response, and are just citing how much time it takes
afterwards. Am I wrong?

Lena

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "Maverick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>
>>
>> <<snip crap>>
>>
>>>>> Well, duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can draw your own conclusions about that, but mine
>>>>>> is that if a burglar enters a home that is occupied, he is fully
>>>>>> prepared
>>>>>> and willing to deal with whatever happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> mistakes happen. I doubt your house is nearly as prepared to defend
>>>>> against a robber as you think. (are you a light sleeper?).
>>>>>
>>>>> Lena
>>>>
>>>> I'm a heavy sleeper, but I've engineered the noisiest doors and
>>>> deadbolts
>>>> you could possibly imagine.
>>>
>>> Good lad. All you need now is a few clever traps, and that burglar won't
>>> even be getting indoors. (traps are a much better way of defending a
>>> house, because you don't even need to be there to stop the burglar).
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> The problem with traps is you have to check them all the time to make sure
>> they haven't stolen the cheese.
>>
>> Bret
>
> Lena must not have a life. I could set "traps" around my house. But, which
> of the large staff of servants is going to undo them in the morning so I
> don't **** off the postman, the UPS guy, the FedEx guy, etc?

Postman can be dealt with. It's called a P.O. box.

Posting warning signs about "no trespassing" should take care of most of
the legal worry.

And there's no point in having traps if you just undo them in the morning.

When aren't you going to be there... during the day or at night?

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I must admit, I am rather dismayed at the markedly provincial nature of
>> this board (at least the posters on this thread). You'd think that they'd
>> never traveled _anywhere_!
>>
>> "uh.... i'm in Amerika, therefore this entire discussion revolves around
>> Amerika."
>>
>> dude, people.... get a life.
>
> Everyone else here is smart enough not to hypothesize about safety and crime
> conditions in places they're not familiar with. So, rather than pull stupid
> ideas out of our asses, we've confined our comments to those which come from
> knowledge of this country.

Your knowledge seems... rather limited. How much time have you spent in
Harlem, anywhichway? Do you feel competent enough to talk about it? How
about L.A.?

lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>> So, how much does a reasonably good gun run? ;-) (sorry for mixing parts
>>> of the thread).
>>
>> Rifle, shotgun, or pistol?
>>
>> Let's put in in the context of your $30 lowball guess.
>
> I think she picked $30 because she saw a price like that in a newspaper
> article about Saturday night specials, which nobody in their right mind
> would buy.

Actually, I just guessed. ;-). It was an educated guess, based on a
mugger being willing to sell his gun(to the people he was mugging) for
$200 in D.C. in the '90s.

Lena

trying to buy the gun off the mugger... that, my friend, is chutzpah.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:49:05 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Custom AP bullets are also reality. I'm not going to discuss the
>>>> strategic ramifications of custom AP bullets, because they aren't really
>>>> relevant.
>
>> Perhaps you might care to explain what you would mean by "custom"...
>> rather than assuming that I don't know what it means.
>>
>> I guess that anything that isn't hollowpoint, and is special made, is
>> probably custom (Silver bullets included). The sort I was talking about
>> explode on contact, blasting chunks of chest apart. Very different from
>> normal bullet wounds and much harder to fix.
>>
>> Lena
>
> I have been in law enforcement for 35 years, I was a fire arms
> (and submachine gun) instructor (at the local police academy )for
> approx. 20 years. I also taught a S.W.A.T. course.
>
> I have been a shooter in combat type competitions,

what are combat type competitions?

> and have reloaded
> ammunition for that reason. I (while) competing have made and fired
> over 5000 rounds a year. And yes I have made silver bullets as a gag.

what alloy?

> In all those years I have never heard of a mortar attack in the U.S.
> And I think that I would have at least heard a hint about it.
>
> AP bullets are Armor Piercing bullets, usually made from a harden
> material so they will go through the armor and pierce the flesh below.
> They do not explode on contact!

when I used AP, I meant anti-personnel. and, yeah, I should have
remembered that AP generally means armor piercing. (*baka*) exploding on
contact
is something pretty rare to find (about as rare as black steel... and
used by the same sorts of people).

Lena

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...

>> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
>> cockamamie statement:
>>
>> "Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
>> definition."
>>
>> I can "take out" a car with my .45 revolver or .40 S&W semi-auto, but no
>> matter what angle I hold them at and no matter how much I squint, neither
>> of
>> them looks anything like an assault rifle. Matter of fact, I have a
>> really
>> nice Smith & Hawken pitchfork with which I could easily puncture 4 holes
>> in
>> a car's radiator. Was this garden tool mislabeled in the catalog? Is it
>> really an assault rifle?
>
> no. when I said "take out" a car, I did not mean just sending a bullet
> straight through the car. I meant "disable the car for future use."
>
> Lena

Adding "future use" to the mix, almost any handgun with a minimum caliber of
..38 +P up to .45 would do as good a job as an "assault rifle". I will not
explain the reasons to you. Why? Because I believe it's a normal human trait
to want to learn more, through independent study, so as to stop embarrassing
yourself by saying ridiculous things.

The information you need is based on 100 year old science and is easily
available at your local library. Do not ask for web links.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
>>>> assault rifles generally means AK-47s.
>>>>
>>>> Lena
>>>
>>> I gave a working definition of assault rifle a couple of days ago.
>>> "Assault rifle" is a legitimate military term for a class of machine
>>> gun.
>>> "Assault weapon" is a humpty dumpty* term that means whatever its user
>>> wants it to mean at the time -- usually meaning something like an AK-47,
>>> which is a semiautomatic rifle that kind of looks like an assault rifle.
>>> The AK-47 is ballistically similar to (but a little less powerful than)
>>> a
>>> .30-30 deer rifle.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> *Humpty Dumpty, in _Through The Looking Glass_, paid his words extra so
>>> they would mean what he wanted.
>>>
>>
>> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
>> cockamamie statement:
>
> While you're at it, kindly justify your "cockamamie" statement about
> 2seconds to fire in a combat situation. I think you've rather forgotten
> about the startle response, and are just citing how much time it takes
> afterwards. Am I wrong?
>
> Lena

By making a blanket statement, yes, you are wrong, especially since YOU
STATED that 100% of your so-called knowledge comes from third parties rather
than direct experience.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV,
>>> no
>>> Radio.) I see.
>> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed.
>> You
>> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.
>
> Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.

I'd like to comment in more detail on the misuse of pesticides by homeowners
and landscapers, but because I don't have the time to study the issue more
deeply, I know when to keep quiet. You should do the same with regard to
guns.


I also asked your age. It's pertinent to the discussion. How old are you?



>>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>>
>>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of
>>> armored
>>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>>> coming with explosive bullets.
>>
>> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
>> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.
>
> Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
> definition", not a real, military definition.

There is no military definition. A gun is a gun. There are DEFECTIVE
definitions, most of which are kept in circulation by the press, and by
ill-informed individuals like you.


> p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.

I'm not hostile. I'm playing trial lawyer and verbally pushing you into a
corner from which you cannot escape. It's a valid debate technique, and you
don't like it.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I must admit, I am rather dismayed at the markedly provincial nature of
>>> this board (at least the posters on this thread). You'd think that
>>> they'd
>>> never traveled _anywhere_!
>>>
>>> "uh.... i'm in Amerika, therefore this entire discussion revolves around
>>> Amerika."
>>>
>>> dude, people.... get a life.
>>
>> Everyone else here is smart enough not to hypothesize about safety and
>> crime
>> conditions in places they're not familiar with. So, rather than pull
>> stupid
>> ideas out of our asses, we've confined our comments to those which come
>> from
>> knowledge of this country.
>
> Your knowledge seems... rather limited. How much time have you spent in
> Harlem, anywhichway? Do you feel competent enough to talk about it? How
> about L.A.?
>
> lena

The time you spend in a certain neighborhood is in no way related to your
fastasy definitions of the pieces of metal we call guns, or how they
operate. If I'm wrong, then the following is true:

"I've never been to Wilmington, Delaware. Therefore, a revolver can be
loaded with as many rounds of ammo as the user wants".

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "zxcvbob" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Lena B Katz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
>>>>> assault rifles generally means AK-47s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lena
>>>>
>>>> I gave a working definition of assault rifle a couple of days ago.
>>>> "Assault rifle" is a legitimate military term for a class of machine
>>>> gun.
>>>> "Assault weapon" is a humpty dumpty* term that means whatever its user
>>>> wants it to mean at the time -- usually meaning something like an AK-47,
>>>> which is a semiautomatic rifle that kind of looks like an assault rifle.
>>>> The AK-47 is ballistically similar to (but a little less powerful than)
>>>> a
>>>> .30-30 deer rifle.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> *Humpty Dumpty, in _Through The Looking Glass_, paid his words extra so
>>>> they would mean what he wanted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good explanation, but I still think Lena need to justify and explain her
>>> cockamamie statement:
>>
>> While you're at it, kindly justify your "cockamamie" statement about
>> 2seconds to fire in a combat situation. I think you've rather forgotten
>> about the startle response, and are just citing how much time it takes
>> afterwards. Am I wrong?
>>
>> Lena
>
> By making a blanket statement, yes, you are wrong, especially since YOU
> STATED that 100% of your so-called knowledge comes from third parties rather
> than direct experience.

Sigh. Do I need to quote you saying "someone can fire a gun in two
seconds" before you'll answer my question? Was that timed including a
startle response, or was it timed on a guncourse, where someone shouted
"go"?

I'm no psych major, but I have personally experienced the startle
response, and I think you have too.

Lena

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>>
>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV,
>>>> no
>>>> Radio.) I see.
>>> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed.
>>> You
>>> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.
>>
>> Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.
>
> I'd like to comment in more detail on the misuse of pesticides by homeowners
> and landscapers, but because I don't have the time to study the issue more
> deeply, I know when to keep quiet. You should do the same with regard to
> guns.

I'll stand by my statement that a gun makes a horrible defensive tool. If
you're on the defense, you don't want a gun. You want something that
doesn't require "line of sight"... doesn't require knowledge of where the
other person is... and ideally something that doesn't require you being
there.

I'll further state that if you expect to be shot at with a gun, your best
first
defense is a bullet-proof jacket and the kind of instincts that send you
to the floor when you hear a loud noise.

as a way of regaining initiative, you might next choose to use a gun
(though I wouldn't recommend it). I would recommend instead using
something that will distract/disable your opponents (actually, using a
gun to take out the lights is a relatively decent strategic move.).

If, however, you are carrying a gun for the psychological intimidation
factor... you've got the wrong weapon. Studies show that knives (or
flamethrowers, for that matter, if you're willing to put up with the
explosion hazard) are more psychologically intimidating.

> I also asked your age. It's pertinent to the discussion. How old are you?

You think I'm just gonna let you get away with asserting that "it's
pertinent to the discussion?" nah... you've got to show that in at least
a little more detail... say, any detail at all.

>>>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>>>
>>>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of
>>>> armored
>>>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>>>> coming with explosive bullets.
>>>
>>> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
>>> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.
>>
>> Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
>> definition", not a real, military definition.
>
> There is no military definition. A gun is a gun. There are DEFECTIVE
> definitions, most of which are kept in circulation by the press, and by
> ill-informed individuals like you.

.... have you read the post on what an "assault rifle" means? do so, if
you please.

>> p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.
>
> I'm not hostile. I'm playing trial lawyer and verbally pushing you into a
> corner from which you cannot escape. It's a valid debate technique, and you
> don't like it.

See, you've got to let me pick my own corners. Otherwise, you can't push
me into them. Particularly when you're throwing up strawmen arguements
about stuff I never said.

Lena