| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|||
|
|||
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >> >> If they were a block distant, they were not a threat. > > Right... five people, converging on your location, obviously following > you, not a _threat_? Jesus. > >> If they *were* a >> threat, in your opinion, there's nothing you could have done about it >> anyway, > > I did the sensible thing. I ran. > >> since this is all in your imagination, and in your dream, you've >> armed yourself with weapons which you cannot obtain, > > Have I ever claimed to have owned a smoke grenade? Didn't think so. You've suggested that they would be good choice for defense. But, since we're discussing reality, as opposed to movies, your suggestion was pointless. >>> Would you rather I say mortar fire? There are quite a few neighborhoods >>> in D.C. that have buildings that still haven't been repaired from the >>> last >>> mortar that hit them. >> >> During what period in history did mortar fire hit buildings in DC? Give >> or >> take 10 years is close enough. > > 1990's. Near the park where the dead people are always buried (like the > lady from Florida). Nice park, except for the corpses. Can you point to any other circumstances of mortars being used by bad people in American cities since, say, 1865? I didn't think so. That means you can now eliminate mortars from your list of threats. Statistically speaking, the threat does not exist. Incidentally, what were the circumstances surrounding this mortar attack in DC? A Google search comes up with 151,000 hits. Maybe you can point to specifics. >>> Cannons are unlikely anywhere, but only because mortars are far more >>> portable. >> >> But, you're not going to say that any more because we're discussing >> threats >> which may actually exist in today's society. Mortars are not in that >> category. > > You gonna tell me next that the Mafia doesn't exist either? Mortars are a > rather extreme example of urban violence. The Mafia exists, and functions on a daily basis in the U.S. Mortars exist, but you do not hear about mortar attacks in this country. By "you do not", I mean it's statistically irrelevant. >>>> Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What >>>> kind? >>>> How much time with an instructor? What were the results? >>> >>> None. >> >> None. I see. Then, where do you come up with the information to discuss >> their effectiveness? > > Let's see... > 1. Discussions with people who have been trained in US Army-like training. > 2. Discussions with people who have been trained in paramilitary training. > 3. Discussions with master tactitians and strategists. > 4. My own knowledge of metallurgy, physics and chemistry. I doubt all of this. There are a dozen senior citizens at my gun club who can put 6 rounds into notebook-paper size targets in under 10 seconds, with all rounds hitting within a 6" circle, from 50' away. This is with calibers of .38 or larger, 4-6" barrels, using iron sights, no scopes or laser toys. You've never spoken to any of the people in your list. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message ... > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > >> >> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >> ... >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Pan Ohco wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:31:43 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote: >>>>>>>>> That last comment is the best reason of all to do one or both of: >>>>>>>> I thank you for your comments, and your points are noted. She has >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> fear of guns, by the way. She can outshoot me on any given day, as >>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>> has since she was little. It's embarassing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> just don't try using guns to defend yourself... it is _such_ a bad >>>>>>> idea. >>>>>>> if people want to use stuff to defend themselves, there are more >>>>>>> practical >>>>>>> ideas (like sound grenades). >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry Lena. If you learn how to use a gun, it is really easy to >>>>>> defend yourself. >>>>> >>>>> not really. you need to be "good" with a gun to defend yourself. be >>>>> "calm" in the face of danger. and, most of all, you've got to be able >>>>> to >>>>> see the other person. >>>>> >>>>> If you can see the other person, that was his second mistake. The >>>>> first >>>>> was not wounding you severely on the first shot. >>>>> >>>>> but, you can find weapons that are more effective against ... more >>>>> intelligent foes. and you shouldn't assume that the person attacking >>>>> you >>>>> is stupid. >>>>> >>>>> The reaction of hearing a bullet/gunshot should never be reaching for >>>>> your >>>>> gun... it should be "hit the deck" followed shortly thereafter by >>>>> creating >>>>> a physical blockade of stuff between you and where the gunshot came >>>>> from. >>>>> >>>>>>> never try to defend yourself with something that requires >>>>>>> line-of-sight. >>>>>>> in most situations, you're lucky if you have _awareness_ of an >>>>>>> attack, >>>>>>> before it occurs, let alone time enough to "point, aim, shoot" >>>>>> Point, aim and shoot are instinctive if you are trained >>>>> >>>>> yeah. but they shouldn't be the only instincts you're trained with... >>>>> and >>>>> they're probably not the best instincts, anywhichway. >>>>> >>>>>>> guns are offensive weapons. >>>>>> Many in this country are used for self defense >>>>> >>>>> by idiots, fighting idiots. >>>>> >>>>> lena >>>> >>>> Someone who drops an intruder in their home in the middle of the night >>>> is >>>> a >>>> "fighting idiot"??? >>> >>> That's not using it defensively. You're on the offense there, not the >>> other person. >>> >>> Lena >> >> The definition of "defensively" depends on your perception of the >> situation. > > bullshit. The definition of "defensive" is in the dictionary. According > to your "definition"... it is self-defense to shoot at kids lighting > fireworks on your property ("well, officer, it sounded like a mortar..."). > > I thought I made it rather clear I was talking about tactics and strategy, > and not necessarily about legalese. > >> If someone's in your home at 3:00 AM and you didn't invite them, do you >> assume it's likely they will harm you, or not? > > You don't want me to answer this question. So I'll answer it for my > parents: If a person was uninvited in their home, yes they would consider > it likely that they would be harmed by the person. > >> I'll help you with this: Somewhere on this website: www.davekopel.org is >> an >> article about interviews with people serving time for burglary. The vast >> majority said they tried very hard to choose homes which were unoccupied, >> for obvious reasons. > > 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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > >> >> "Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >> ... >>> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Sometimes, people ask to be shot, and it's rude not to grant their >>>> request. >>> >>> ROFL! Emily Post was your mom, wasn't she? >>> >>> Carol >> >> It's just common sense, Carol. Think about it: Using my city (Rochester >> NY) >> as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working >> gun >> of some kind. > > Who is doing this estimating? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it > isn't the "anti-gun" advocates. Interview with our county sherrif, on TV a couple of years ago. He was using real pistol permit stats from the county clerk's office. Sorry, Lena. It's real. This doesn't necessarily mean that all those guns are in good working order and ready to use. But they do, in fact, exist. >> In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit >> of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as >> they >> are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but >> actually in the house. > > Your home is your castle, and all that. Old law, dating back to England. > >> Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. > > Damn. That's gotta be a stretch. You're trying to tell me that a shotgun > is going to kill that burglar? If that's a technical question about whether a shotgun will do the job, you're an expert, so you know the answer. You've spoken to all sorts of Army experts. > Seriously, let's think about this: > in order to shoot someone, you need to be able to find the gun, be able to > aim and shoot (that is, the person in the house needs to be able to fire > and be accurate), and have a gun that is capable of killing someone before > they get to the hospital. Actually, shotguns are the perfect home defense weapon for two reasons: First, they are highly lethal, even if the shot's not perfect. You're an expert on guns, so you know why that is. Maybe others here do NOT know, so why don't you (the expert) tell us why shotguns are so lethal that they're carried in virtually all police cars, and are increasingly used by the military for perimeter security? Second, the sound of a pump shotgun being racked communicates BIG trouble to an intruder. They know that shotguns are lethal. Therefore, if they hear that sound and do not leave the house instantly, you can conclude that they are armed, or they are insane. That clears up many things in just a matter of moments. > But, how many people do you know who keep their guns on them at all times? > Most of the people I know keep them in places where the robbers would have > an easier time finding the gun than the people who own the house. You shouldn't hang around with stupid people like that. It's dangerous. >Fat chance, unless you are a crack shot, or enjoy letting people bleed to >death (if you do, you have earned my enmity and hatred). Hospitals know >how to save most people from a lousy bullet wound. How is a shotgun wound different from a "lousy bullet wound"? You're an expert. Teach me. As far as letting someone bleed to death, the police generally recommend that you remain a fair distance from an injured intruder, for your own safety. And, the law does not require that you administer first aid. >> I don't know >> about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a >> VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' >> minds", and is asking to be shot. > > He's asking to go to jail. That's all. But any competent thief will know > when you go to bed, and will know when you aren't there at all. (it's > only expert thieves that will use gas, but then you've got bigger > problems). Gas???? What the phuque are you talking about? Oh...wait. I know. You're gonna say that thieves in D.C. commonly lob tear gas into homes before going in. Got it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Kanter wrote: [snip] > Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) > as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly working gun > of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the benefit > of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long as they > are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, but > actually in the house. > > Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I don't know > about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return for a > VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' > minds", and is asking to be shot. [snip] > > I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic might be > slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) It's your assumptions, not your logic, that are more than rusty. For your "1 in 3 chance of being shot dead" to be right, you have to assume that 100% of all intrusions into houses with guns result in a fatal shooting. No cases of the gun owner not getting the gun, or not choosing to fire it, or not hitting the target fatally or, etc., etc. That said, I agree with nearly everything else you've said. Don't quite see why you keep enabling the ignorant fool to continue spinning her fantasies, though. She obviously -aem |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"aem" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Doug Kanter wrote: > [snip] >> Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) >> as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly > working gun >> of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the > benefit >> of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long > as they >> are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, > but >> actually in the house. >> >> Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I > don't know >> about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return > for a >> VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' > >> minds", and is asking to be shot. [snip] >> >> I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic > might be >> slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) > > It's your assumptions, not your logic, that are more than rusty. For > your "1 in 3 chance of being shot dead" to be right, you have to assume > that 100% of all intrusions into houses with guns result in a fatal > shooting. No cases of the gun owner not getting the gun, or not > choosing to fire it, or not hitting the target fatally or, etc., etc. I know, but since it's impossible to make any accurate assumption, I chose the best possible outcome. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... > >>>> preventitive medicine, with none of the bad consequences of carrying a >>>> concealed weapon. >>>> >>>> lena >>> >>> What bad consequences? If you have 50 acquaintances, I'll bet 20 carry >>> concealed, legally, and you have no awareness of it. >> >> You're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming that the proportion of >> people you know have guns is similar to the proportion of people I know >> that have guns. > > Neither of us has any idea who's carrying a gun. My number was based purely > on pistol permit stats for NY, not counting NY City & Long Island, whose > rules are totally different than upstate. Are you assuming an equal distributions of guns? i.e. one gun per household? Or was that actually from the stats you got? (where, btw, did you get the stats?) >> There are bad consequences associated with carrying a loaded gun... not >> the least of which is the safety factor. > > Gee....ya think? Maybe this is why there are pistol safety classes, and gun > shop staff who (based on my experience) are fanatical about helping people > choose holsters which contribute to safety. (I don't suppose you are aware > of any specifics in that regard). Well, I could say "you'll shoot your eye out"... ;-) >> Another factor is having the gun be used against you (whether you had it >> on your person at the time or not). > > Wow. Maybe this is why many states require that the gun be concealed, and > why cops will get all over your case if you don't conceal effectively. Do you have a concealed weapon permit? If so, do you have it on you at all times, when it is out of the house? (aka no taking it off for work/gym/swimming/etc.). >> If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing it >> right. People who carry guns should be trained on how to react to >> gunshots (or fireworks, or cars backfiring, which sound similar to the >> amygdala). I know people who hit the floor, and reach for a gun, whenever >> they hear gunshots. > > Let me get this straight: If they "doing it right", according to your > definition, they should be drawing the gun any time they hear a loud noise > which resembles a gunshot??? To me, that sounds totally irresponsible. If you're in a potential combat situation, you should respond accordingly. If you heard something that you identified as a threat, I'd assume that you would react the same way. Not reacting to a gunshot as a threat means that you don't have enough awareness of the situation around you (or possibly that you're asleep enough on your feet to not treat a possibly life-threatening hazard seriously). Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Doug Kanter"
> wrote: > certain ancient carpenter with a beard was mentioned more often than the > bride & groom. I wasn't sure who was marrying whom. :-) 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. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message ... > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > >> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>>> preventitive medicine, with none of the bad consequences of carrying a >>>>> concealed weapon. >>>>> >>>>> lena >>>> >>>> What bad consequences? If you have 50 acquaintances, I'll bet 20 carry >>>> concealed, legally, and you have no awareness of it. >>> >>> You're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming that the proportion of >>> people you know have guns is similar to the proportion of people I know >>> that have guns. >> >> Neither of us has any idea who's carrying a gun. My number was based >> purely >> on pistol permit stats for NY, not counting NY City & Long Island, whose >> rules are totally different than upstate. > > Are you assuming an equal distributions of guns? i.e. one gun per > household? Or was that actually from the stats you got? (where, btw, did > you get the stats?) > Each permit represents one person, not one gun. The number of permits does not tell you how many guns exist. The stat came from an interview with our county sherrif a couple of years ago. I'm sure you could find the numbers online if you wanted. I believe the NY State Police have the info at their web site, although I could be wrong. It's public info, though. >>> There are bad consequences associated with carrying a loaded gun... not >>> the least of which is the safety factor. >> >> Gee....ya think? Maybe this is why there are pistol safety classes, and >> gun >> shop staff who (based on my experience) are fanatical about helping >> people >> choose holsters which contribute to safety. (I don't suppose you are >> aware >> of any specifics in that regard). > > Well, I could say "you'll shoot your eye out"... ;-) > Zzzzzzzzzz......... >>> Another factor is having the gun be used against you (whether you had >>> it >>> on your person at the time or not). >> >> Wow. Maybe this is why many states require that the gun be concealed, and >> why cops will get all over your case if you don't conceal effectively. > > Do you have a concealed weapon permit? If so, do you have it on you at > all times, when it is out of the house? (aka no taking it off for > work/gym/swimming/etc.). All NY permits require concealed carry, and that's what I have. I got it originally because I do a lot of fishing, alone in remote areas, and ferile dogs are a real problem in places like the Adirondacks. I carry if I'm running erands at night, and a few other selective times, the details of which I will not go into. At home, it's locked up very securely, but I can have it out in under 10 seconds, even if I can't find my glasses in the dark. Its best friend is a small tactical flashlight designed to blind an intruder so he has a moment to consider whether he wants to continue with his plans, or high tail it out the door. Why give him this choice? The cops do not clean up the mess for you, and I have better things to do. >>> If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing >>> it >>> right. People who carry guns should be trained on how to react to >>> gunshots (or fireworks, or cars backfiring, which sound similar to the >>> amygdala). I know people who hit the floor, and reach for a gun, >>> whenever >>> they hear gunshots. >> >> Let me get this straight: If they "doing it right", according to your >> definition, they should be drawing the gun any time they hear a loud >> noise >> which resembles a gunshot??? To me, that sounds totally irresponsible. > > If you're in a potential combat situation, you should respond accordingly. > If you heard something that you identified as a threat, I'd assume that > you would react the same way. > > Not reacting to a gunshot as a threat means that you don't have enough > awareness of the situation around you (or possibly that you're asleep > enough on your feet to not treat a possibly life-threatening hazard > seriously). Right. What this means is that if you're not sure it's a gunshot or a car backfiring, you should unbutton your jacket and be ready. If you're sure it's a gunshot, it could have come from a cop. Do you really want to be waving a gun at someone who trains more than you do? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Doug Kanter" > > wrote: > > >> certain ancient carpenter with a beard was mentioned more often than the >> bride & groom. I wasn't sure who was marrying whom. :-) > > > 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 looks like Mario Lanza or John Travolta. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
[snip] > If He showed up at a US airport today, He'd be turned away as a > potential terrorist threat. Creepy, huh? > > Carol Not creepy, just consistent. The historical one was executed as a revolutionary, wasn't he? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. BTW, do you even know the difference between a semiautomatic weapon and an assault weapon. It sure seems that you don't. Sandi |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TheAlligator" > wrote in message ... > My daughter was attacked yesterday - apparently an attempted rape or > abduction. I responded like a spoiled brat, and have publically > apologized in another group for the filthy, racist statements that I > made. I'm really quite ashamed of myself, and I don't quite know > where it all came from. It's not the way I was raised. Why is it > that we really think we have it all together and then when the chips > are down, we always disappoint ourselves and everyone around us? I'm > feeling pretty damn humble right now, and have a lot of people to > apologize to. Particularly the law enforcement guys, one of which was > wise and kind enough to ignore my statements about killing him to get > to the guy if I had to. My daughter is only 16, and quite a looker, > if I say so myself (she must be adopted). She has only been driving a > few weeks, and everytime she leaves the house, I worry about this kind > of thing more than driving problems. And then it actually happened. > I'm still in shock. Turns out, she is OK because she nailed the perp > in the crotch, then poked out one of his eyes. 105 pounds of beauty > and sheer terror in one package. I feel sorry for the guy that > actually marries her someday. Guess all those muffled sighs I gave > out while sitting through endless Tae Kwan Do classes are coming back > to haunt me now, eh? In that she is okay-well, that is all that matters. That you want to kill the *******-well, that is normal-I would do the same thing in your position-be damned cooler heads. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com>, "Sandi"
> wrote: > automatic weapons. BTW, do you even know the difference between a > semiautomatic weapon and an assault weapon. It sure seems that you > don't. I don't know. Could you explain it please? :-) I live in California, which passed a ban on assault rifles. Problem was, they couldn't define what they were. I think that they gave up, and just specified model numbers and a picture of each one. Once the manufacturer changed the model number and some minor cosmetic feature, it was no longer an assault rifle by law. -- Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... >> >> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: >> >>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>> ... >>> >>>>>> preventitive medicine, with none of the bad consequences of carrying a >>>>>> concealed weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> lena >>>>> >>>>> What bad consequences? If you have 50 acquaintances, I'll bet 20 carry >>>>> concealed, legally, and you have no awareness of it. >>>> >>>> You're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming that the proportion of >>>> people you know have guns is similar to the proportion of people I know >>>> that have guns. >>> >>> Neither of us has any idea who's carrying a gun. My number was based >>> purely >>> on pistol permit stats for NY, not counting NY City & Long Island, whose >>> rules are totally different than upstate. >> >> Are you assuming an equal distributions of guns? i.e. one gun per >> household? Or was that actually from the stats you got? (where, btw, did >> you get the stats?) >> > > Each permit represents one person, not one gun. The number of permits does > not tell you how many guns exist. The stat came from an interview with our > county sherrif a couple of years ago. I'm sure you could find the numbers > online if you wanted. I believe the NY State Police have the info at their > web site, although I could be wrong. It's public info, though. k. Reasonably non-biased source detected. (I'm glad your source wasn't the NRA, which would have reason to distort the facts...). >>>> Another factor is having the gun be used against you (whether you had >>>> it >>>> on your person at the time or not). >>> >>> Wow. Maybe this is why many states require that the gun be concealed, and >>> why cops will get all over your case if you don't conceal effectively. >> >> Do you have a concealed weapon permit? If so, do you have it on you at >> all times, when it is out of the house? (aka no taking it off for >> work/gym/swimming/etc.). > > All NY permits require concealed carry, and that's what I have. I got it > originally because I do a lot of fishing, alone in remote areas, and ferile > dogs are a real problem in places like the Adirondacks. They're a problem even in small towns, where people don't pen them up. Last I checked, kids were using "whappin' sticks" to fend off the dogs. >>>> If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing >>>> it >>>> right. People who carry guns should be trained on how to react to >>>> gunshots (or fireworks, or cars backfiring, which sound similar to the >>>> amygdala). I know people who hit the floor, and reach for a gun, >>>> whenever >>>> they hear gunshots. >>> >>> Let me get this straight: If they "doing it right", according to your >>> definition, they should be drawing the gun any time they hear a loud >>> noise >>> which resembles a gunshot??? To me, that sounds totally irresponsible. >> >> If you're in a potential combat situation, you should respond accordingly. >> If you heard something that you identified as a threat, I'd assume that >> you would react the same way. >> >> Not reacting to a gunshot as a threat means that you don't have enough >> awareness of the situation around you (or possibly that you're asleep >> enough on your feet to not treat a possibly life-threatening hazard >> seriously). > > Right. What this means is that if you're not sure it's a gunshot or a car > backfiring, you should unbutton your jacket and be ready. If you're sure > it's a gunshot, it could have come from a cop. Do you really want to be > waving a gun at someone who trains more than you do? If you're lying on the floor with a gun out, you're probably not going to get shot by anyone... especially if you've got some cover. Yeah, it's still probably not a good idea to be waving the gun around. But it is a good idea to take cover. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lena B Katz > wrote:
>I did the sensible thing. I ran. Even if you're big into self sefense and weapons training this is the second best thing to do before having to defend yourself. The first is trying to avoid places where this is likely to happen. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lena B Katz > wrote:
>If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing it >right. Actually, Lena, this is the main reason why legal concealed carry is so effective. It's not because a bunch of people suddenly start arming themselves. You don't HAVE to carry a gun to have the same benefits of that right. Because, as a bad guy, I don't know WHO has a weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave W." > wrote in message
... > In article >, > Damsel in dis Dress > wrote: > >> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, >> wrote: >> >> >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message >> >news 
>> >>> >Well....it was 58% humor. My ex is a Unitarian and I've met some of the >> >people from the church. It's an interesting blend of misunderstood >> >philosophies, I think. But at least they don't travel the world >> >"helping" >> >other cultures by delivering venereal disease & smallpox. >> >> This is true. >> >> I explored the Unitarian Universalist church briefly. The one I attended >> was loaded with intellectuals, but there wasn't much spirituality taking >> place. I don't really enjoy intellectual discussions much. >> > Hey, I went to a Unitarian church for a few weeks a long time ago in > Cincinnati. Nice people, mostly (I assume) academics ... it was near the > U. of Cincinnati. In my rather fuzzy memory the "sermons" went something > like " God, if he or she exists, might want us to live like this. Then > again, he or she may not. How are we to know?" > > In any event, the "sermons" were uninformative but mercifully brief and > generally followed by a harpsichord recital. I don't like harpsichord > that much, so I stopped going. > > OB food: Tilapia this evening. My new and dear wife will be doing the > honors so I don't know how it will be prepared or with what it will be > accompanied. But I know I will enjoy it. > > Regards, > Dave W. Kiss Ass! ;-> Sorry, had to say it. 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 =---- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
... > zxcvbob >, if that's their real name, wrote: > >>I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. >>Seriously. > > UU was described to me as believing everything and nothing. > >>I should go yo a Unitarian church service sometime just to see what they >>talk/sing about. > > As I recall, they were pretty political. I remember singing Morning Has > Broken (Cat Stevens). > >>(trying to get another topic drift going...) > > Good job, Bob! > > Carol I belong to the church of Agnostic Apathy. Don't Know, Don't Care. YMMV ;-> Sorry, couldn't resist. 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 =---- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel in dis Dress wrote: > "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name, > wrote: > > >"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message > >news  > >> > >> I wish I could remember who told me this. They said that a police officer > >> friend had told them that if you kill an intruder just as they're entering > >> your home, and they don't fall forward into the house, you should drag > >> their body inside, so you won't get in trouble. I can't imagine anyone > >> doing that. Or getting away with it. > > > >I think it depends on the cop you end up with. I wouldn't want to risk > >ending up with a cop whose thinking was not evolved. I might end up with a > >jury which included several Unitarians, and then where would I be? I have > >great respect for them, but once, one of them said to me "Well...sometimes > >when things are stolen, it means you'd owned those things long enough and it > >was someone else's turn". Bite me. Imagine that person trying a self-defense > >shooting. :-) > > WTF? That is one bizarre philosophy. Are you sure that it's a Unitarian > thing, or just one odd person's? I'm UU and it is just some odd person's belief. He could blame it on the person being black, white, vegan, whatever, but for some reason chose the fact that he was UU...whatever! -L. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
zxcvbob wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure they don't believe anything in particular anymore. > Seriously. Actually we do. (from uua.org): We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote * The inherent worth and dignity of every person; * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; * The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. > > I should go yo a Unitarian church service sometime just to see what they > talk/sing about. You would be welcomed there - as is everyone, theists and non-theists. My fave song is "Little Brown Church in the Vale." We have certain rituals like the lighting of the chalice and sharing of joys and concerns. Not all congregations do them, though. -L. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 -- "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_ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >>> >>> Are you assuming an equal distributions of guns? i.e. one gun per >>> household? Or was that actually from the stats you got? (where, btw, >>> did >>> you get the stats?) >>> >> >> Each permit represents one person, not one gun. The number of permits >> does >> not tell you how many guns exist. The stat came from an interview with >> our >> county sherrif a couple of years ago. I'm sure you could find the numbers >> online if you wanted. I believe the NY State Police have the info at >> their >> web site, although I could be wrong. It's public info, though. > > k. Reasonably non-biased source detected. (I'm glad your source wasn't > the NRA, which would have reason to distort the facts...). Like many gun owners, I'm no big fan of the NRA, since they tend to have an unhealthy, polarizing effect on the gun debate. But, the figures they use in their arguments are backed up with cites (sources). They would only be hurting their cause by fiddling with numbers whose accuracy can easily be checked. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... > >>> >>> If they were a block distant, they were not a threat. >> >> Right... five people, converging on your location, obviously following >> you, not a _threat_? Jesus. >> >>> If they *were* a >>> threat, in your opinion, there's nothing you could have done about it >>> anyway, >> >> I did the sensible thing. I ran. > > > >> >>> since this is all in your imagination, and in your dream, you've >>> armed yourself with weapons which you cannot obtain, >> >> Have I ever claimed to have owned a smoke grenade? Didn't think so. > > You've suggested that they would be good choice for defense. But, since > we're discussing reality, as opposed to movies, your suggestion was > pointless. Reality includes many things... Smoke grenades exist, and believe it or not, are used. 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. >>>> Would you rather I say mortar fire? There are quite a few neighborhoods >>>> in D.C. that have buildings that still haven't been repaired from the >>>> last >>>> mortar that hit them. >>> >>> During what period in history did mortar fire hit buildings in DC? Give >>> or >>> take 10 years is close enough. >> >> 1990's. Near the park where the dead people are always buried (like the >> lady from Florida). Nice park, except for the corpses. > > Can you point to any other circumstances of mortars being used by bad people > in American cities since, say, 1865? Well, since the neighborhoods in question looked like they had suffered from sustained mortar barrage, I'd guess it is a reasonably common event. > now eliminate mortars from your list of threats. Statistically speaking, the > threat does not exist. Depends on where you are. _All_ of this depends on where you are. Just because I'm talking about events that are unlikely to occur in the next three years in your neighborhood, doesn't mean that they don't exist. Also it doesn't mean that the threat will never exist. >>>> Cannons are unlikely anywhere, but only because mortars are far more >>>> portable. >>> >>> But, you're not going to say that any more because we're discussing >>> threats >>> which may actually exist in today's society. Mortars are not in that >>> category. >> >> You gonna tell me next that the Mafia doesn't exist either? Mortars are a >> rather extreme example of urban violence. > > The Mafia exists, and functions on a daily basis in the U.S. Mortars exist, > but you do not hear about mortar attacks in this country. By "you do not", I > mean it's statistically irrelevant. Will you also say that being attacked by the Mob is statistically irrelevant? I wouldn't dare. >>>>> Question: How much time have you spent practicing with a handgun? What >>>>> kind? >>>>> How much time with an instructor? What were the results? >>>> >>>> None. >>> >>> None. I see. Then, where do you come up with the information to discuss >>> their effectiveness? >> >> Let's see... >> 1. Discussions with people who have been trained in US Army-like training. >> 2. Discussions with people who have been trained in paramilitary training. >> 3. Discussions with master tactitians and strategists. >> 4. My own knowledge of metallurgy, physics and chemistry. > > I doubt all of this. There are a dozen senior citizens at my gun club who > can put 6 rounds into notebook-paper size targets in under 10 seconds, with > all rounds hitting within a 6" circle, from 50' away. This is with calibers > of .38 or larger, 4-6" barrels, using iron sights, no scopes or laser toys. Yeah, I know that. Guns are pretty little toys, that have useful strategic possibilities. Point remains, though, that they suck at defense. And that anyone who doesn't react to a gunshot as if their life is in danger is going to die when it is. Or do you carry a gun for some other reason than to defend yourself against people trying to kill you? Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... >> >> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: >> >>> >>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Pan Ohco wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:31:43 -0500 (EST), Lena B Katz >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, TheAlligator wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Doug Kanter" > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That last comment is the best reason of all to do one or both of: >>>>>>>>> I thank you for your comments, and your points are noted. She has >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> fear of guns, by the way. She can outshoot me on any given day, as >>>>>>>>> she >>>>>>>>> has since she was little. It's embarassing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> just don't try using guns to defend yourself... it is _such_ a bad >>>>>>>> idea. >>>>>>>> if people want to use stuff to defend themselves, there are more >>>>>>>> practical >>>>>>>> ideas (like sound grenades). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry Lena. If you learn how to use a gun, it is really easy to >>>>>>> defend yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> not really. you need to be "good" with a gun to defend yourself. be >>>>>> "calm" in the face of danger. and, most of all, you've got to be able >>>>>> to >>>>>> see the other person. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can see the other person, that was his second mistake. The >>>>>> first >>>>>> was not wounding you severely on the first shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> but, you can find weapons that are more effective against ... more >>>>>> intelligent foes. and you shouldn't assume that the person attacking >>>>>> you >>>>>> is stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reaction of hearing a bullet/gunshot should never be reaching for >>>>>> your >>>>>> gun... it should be "hit the deck" followed shortly thereafter by >>>>>> creating >>>>>> a physical blockade of stuff between you and where the gunshot came >>>>>> from. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> never try to defend yourself with something that requires >>>>>>>> line-of-sight. >>>>>>>> in most situations, you're lucky if you have _awareness_ of an >>>>>>>> attack, >>>>>>>> before it occurs, let alone time enough to "point, aim, shoot" >>>>>>> Point, aim and shoot are instinctive if you are trained >>>>>> >>>>>> yeah. but they shouldn't be the only instincts you're trained with... >>>>>> and >>>>>> they're probably not the best instincts, anywhichway. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> guns are offensive weapons. >>>>>>> Many in this country are used for self defense >>>>>> >>>>>> by idiots, fighting idiots. >>>>>> >>>>>> lena >>>>> >>>>> Someone who drops an intruder in their home in the middle of the night >>>>> is >>>>> a >>>>> "fighting idiot"??? >>>> >>>> That's not using it defensively. You're on the offense there, not the >>>> other person. >>>> >>>> Lena >>> >>> The definition of "defensively" depends on your perception of the >>> situation. >> >> bullshit. The definition of "defensive" is in the dictionary. According >> to your "definition"... it is self-defense to shoot at kids lighting >> fireworks on your property ("well, officer, it sounded like a mortar..."). >> >> I thought I made it rather clear I was talking about tactics and strategy, >> and not necessarily about legalese. >> >>> If someone's in your home at 3:00 AM and you didn't invite them, do you >>> assume it's likely they will harm you, or not? >> >> You don't want me to answer this question. So I'll answer it for my >> parents: If a person was uninvited in their home, yes they would consider >> it likely that they would be harmed by the person. >> >>> I'll help you with this: Somewhere on this website: www.davekopel.org is >>> an >>> article about interviews with people serving time for burglary. The vast >>> majority said they tried very hard to choose homes which were unoccupied, >>> for obvious reasons. >> >> 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > > "aem" > wrote in message > ups.com... >> >> Doug Kanter wrote: >> [snip] >>> Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) >>> as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly >> working gun >>> of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the >> benefit >>> of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long >> as they >>> are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, >> but >>> actually in the house. >>> >>> Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I >> don't know >>> about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return >> for a >>> VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' >> >>> minds", and is asking to be shot. [snip] >>> >>> I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic >> might be >>> slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) >> >> It's your assumptions, not your logic, that are more than rusty. For >> your "1 in 3 chance of being shot dead" to be right, you have to assume >> that 100% of all intrusions into houses with guns result in a fatal >> shooting. No cases of the gun owner not getting the gun, or not >> choosing to fire it, or not hitting the target fatally or, etc., etc. > > I know, but since it's impossible to make any accurate assumption, I chose > the best possible outcome. Thus making yourself sound like an idiot. Talk to your sheriff about the number of robberies and attempted robberies... then estimate the likelihood of a gun being present in each one. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. > 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? > 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. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message > ... > >>>> >>>> Are you assuming an equal distributions of guns? i.e. one gun per >>>> household? Or was that actually from the stats you got? (where, btw, >>>> did >>>> you get the stats?) >>>> >>> >>> Each permit represents one person, not one gun. The number of permits >>> does >>> not tell you how many guns exist. The stat came from an interview with >>> our >>> county sherrif a couple of years ago. I'm sure you could find the numbers >>> online if you wanted. I believe the NY State Police have the info at >>> their >>> web site, although I could be wrong. It's public info, though. >> >> k. Reasonably non-biased source detected. (I'm glad your source wasn't >> the NRA, which would have reason to distort the facts...). > > Like many gun owners, I'm no big fan of the NRA, since they tend to have an > unhealthy, polarizing effect on the gun debate. But, the figures they use in > their arguments are backed up with cites (sources). They would only be > hurting their cause by fiddling with numbers whose accuracy can easily be > checked. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. I'm a bit "gun-shy" over here... Just found a "pamphlet" saying that studies had shown that Abstinence Education was no better than No Sex Ed at all. Problem was, when I looked at a metaanalysis, it had found that _neither_ Abstinence Plus or pure Abstinence Education was better than No Sex Ed at all. People distort. Somtimes they do it intentionally. Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, AlleyGator wrote: > Lena B Katz > wrote: >> If I don't know that they're carrying a gun, they're probably not doing it >> right. > Actually, Lena, this is the main reason why legal concealed carry is > so effective. It's not because a bunch of people suddenly start > arming themselves. You don't HAVE to carry a gun to have the same > benefits of that right. Because, as a bad guy, I don't know WHO has a > weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon > that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble. Good point. This might save you from a casual mugger (if he doesn't carry his own -- of course, most muggers who work barehanded don't work alone...). It won't save you from anything more threatening (you think someone can't read whether you have a gun on you and can/will use it? Come on. I know people who have regularly disarmed (bare-handed) folks who drew knives on them. It was part of their job. You don't do shit like that if you think the *******'s serious). Lena |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lena B Katz wrote:
> People distort. Somtimes they do it intentionally. > > Lena My irony meter just exploded :-( Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >> 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. Are you saying that any gun which can "take out" a car is an assault rifle? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >> You've suggested that they would be good choice for defense. But, since >> we're discussing reality, as opposed to movies, your suggestion was >> pointless. > > Reality includes many things... Smoke grenades exist, and believe it or > not, are used. 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. I see the problem here. You have reading comprehension problems, so we need to edit severely so there's not a lot of text to confuse you. If you pose 3 questions in one message, we'll break the responses into 3 pieces. Response to the paraphraph beginning with "Reality includes....": Private jets exist, but I don't have one. Smoke grenades exist, but you don't have any. Yes, they are used, but not by private citizens to any extent you could call "frequent" or "common". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. Response to "Custom AP bullets....": If "AP" means "anti-personnel", then that category includes hollow-point ammo, which is owned by pretty much any private citizen who keeps a handgun for defense. Therefore, it is not irrelevant. As far as "custom", you do not know what that means. If I'm wrong, explain yourself. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... I asked you: >> Can you point to any other circumstances of mortars being used by bad >> people >> in American cities since, say, 1865? > You responded with: > Well, since the neighborhoods in question looked like they had suffered > from sustained mortar barrage, I'd guess it is a reasonably common event. Nice troll. Please let us know the date & time of your next appointment with your shrink. I'd like to see if your conversation becomes any more grounded immediately after therapy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >> 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 I just came to one of two conclusions: 1) Your name is not Lena Katz. No Jewish family would let a person as crazy as you out of the house. Too much cultural pride. 2) You have missed your meds for quite a few days. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message ... > Lena B Katz wrote: > >> People distort. Somtimes they do it intentionally. >> >> Lena > > > > My irony meter just exploded :-( > > Best regards, > Bob You OK there, Bob? :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
... >> Like many gun owners, I'm no big fan of the NRA, since they tend to have >> an >> unhealthy, polarizing effect on the gun debate. But, the figures they use >> in >> their arguments are backed up with cites (sources). They would only be >> hurting their cause by fiddling with numbers whose accuracy can easily be >> checked. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. > > I'm a bit "gun-shy" over here... Just found a "pamphlet" saying that > studies had shown that Abstinence Education was no better than No Sex Ed > at all. > > Problem was, when I looked at a metaanalysis, it had found that _neither_ > Abstinence Plus or pure Abstinence Education was better than No Sex Ed at > all. > > People distort. Somtimes they do it intentionally. > > Lena So, if I took you to our county clerk's office, where you could personally count (as in "how many are there") pistol permit records, along with photocopies of the cancelled checks used to pay for them....... <lots of white space here, because you're an idiot> ..........you would say that what was right in front of you, in a file cabinet, WAS DISTORTED??? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message ... > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote: > >> >> "aem" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >>> >>> Doug Kanter wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> Think about it: Using my city (Rochester NY) >>>> as an example, it's estimated that 1/3 of homes have a properly >>> working gun >>>> of some kind. In NY, it's ***LEGAL*** (as in NOT ILLEGAL, for the >>> benefit >>>> of slow learners) to shoot an intruder, no questions asked, as long >>> as they >>>> are IN YOUR DWELLING. Not your garage, not your yard, not your car, >>> but >>>> actually in the house. >>>> >>>> Translation: A burglar has a 1 in 3 chance of being shot dead. I >>> don't know >>>> about you, but I think anyone who accepts such lousy odds in return >>> for a >>>> VCR and some jewelry is (as psychiatrists say) "out of their friggin' >>> >>>> minds", and is asking to be shot. [snip] >>>> >>>> I'm writing this after having only one cup of coffee, so my logic >>> might be >>>> slightly rusty, but even so....it's pretty good logic. :-) >>> >>> It's your assumptions, not your logic, that are more than rusty. For >>> your "1 in 3 chance of being shot dead" to be right, you have to assume >>> that 100% of all intrusions into houses with guns result in a fatal >>> shooting. No cases of the gun owner not getting the gun, or not >>> choosing to fire it, or not hitting the target fatally or, etc., etc. >> >> I know, but since it's impossible to make any accurate assumption, I >> chose >> the best possible outcome. > > Thus making yourself sound like an idiot. Talk to your sheriff about the > number of robberies and attempted robberies... then estimate the > likelihood of a gun being present in each one. > > Lena Hang on a second! You believe buildings in DC are being hit by mortar fire, and you're calling ME an idiot??? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crhistians attacked for christmas | General Cooking | |||
| In California, wave a U.S. flag and be attacked by foreigners who snuck into the country illegally | General Cooking | |||
| Man attacked by Omulet causes New Orleans disaster | General Cooking | |||
| A Coffee-Monster attacked me | Coffee | |||
Linear Mode
