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.
>
> 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.

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "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.......

I said, in part of my message that you kindly deleted, that your source
was relatively unbiased. I'm not trying to say that gov't numbers can't
be faked/misleading, but I'm also not trying to say your numbers aren't
valid.

NRA numbers might require a bit more homework... mostly on who did the
research and how biased they are.

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "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.

Ad hominem attacks lose you credibility. Kindly return to the discussion
at hand.

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "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???

Read what I wrote _again_, as your feeble brain apparently missed a few
words. "making yourself SOUND LIKE an idiot" Does that help?
I don't insult people for no reason.

Lena

In article >, x-no-archive: yes wrote:


> weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon
> that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble.


I think that what you know is not correct. If I carry my gun where
everybody can see it, I don't need a concealed weapon permit. I don't
need anything. If I want to carry my gun concealed, then I need a permit,
and many places limit those quite severely.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

In article >,
Lena B Katz > wrote:


> Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
> definition.


Thereby showing your ignorance about guns. Assault rifles are intended
for shooting humans at short ranges. Many ordinary hunting rifles are
much more powerful than assault rifles.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps you might care to explain what you would mean by "custom"...
> rather than assuming that I don't know what it means.

***YOU*** used the phrase "custom AP bullets", dummy. ***YOU*** explain what
you meant by that.




> 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

Silver bullets? Please find some at one of these sites. As far as "exploding
bullets", those would violate the Geneva Convention.

Larger manufacters, at least 3 of which make ammo for police and military
use:
Federal Cartridge: http://168.215.71.68/default.asp?br=1
Cor-Bon: http://www.corbon.com/
Garrett: http://www.garrettcartridges.com/default.asp
Hornady: http://www.hornady.com/
Remington: http://www.remington.com/default
Winchester: http://www.winchester.com/

Smaller manufacturers, primarily providing ammo for hunter:
http://www.a-merc.com/
http://www.buffalobore.com/
http://www.castperformance.com/
http://www.casull.com/

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

> 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

Exploding bullets??? Right. They exist in larger sizes like 50mm, designed
specifically for penetrating armored vehicles or walls. You've never heard
of such a thing used in this country by criminals. The guns are too heavy
(and impossible to conceal, or to transport with raising eyebrows), and the
ammo's too expensive.

Forget your "exploding bullets" delusion right now.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Ad hominem attacks lose you credibility. Kindly return to the discussion
> at hand.
>
> Lena

YOU return to reality, and we will return to the discussion at hand. From
this point on, I want specific sources for your information. No source, no
credibility.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>> "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.......
>
> I said, in part of my message that you kindly deleted, that your source
> was relatively unbiased. I'm not trying to say that gov't numbers can't
> be faked/misleading, but I'm also not trying to say your numbers aren't
> valid.
>
> NRA numbers might require a bit more homework... mostly on who did the
> research and how biased they are.
>
> Lena

If a link in an NRA story points directly to an FBI web site showing (for
example) the number of crimes committed with certain types of guns, I think
it's safe to assume the data is clean.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, x-no-archive: yes
> wrote:
>
>
>> weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon
>> that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble.
>
>
> I think that what you know is not correct. If I carry my gun where
> everybody can see it, I don't need a concealed weapon permit. I don't
> need anything. If I want to carry my gun concealed, then I need a permit,
> and many places limit those quite severely.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
>

That's because you're in California. Different in NY and many other states:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

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

>> Hang on a second! You believe buildings in DC are being hit by mortar
>> fire,
>> and you're calling ME an idiot???
>
> Read what I wrote _again_, as your feeble brain apparently missed a few
> words. "making yourself SOUND LIKE an idiot" Does that help?
> I don't insult people for no reason.
>
> Lena

Let's make this simple: Do you, or do you not believe that buildings in
Washington D.C. have been hit by mortar fire in the past 50 years?

Yes
or
No

In article >, "Doug Kanter"
> wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...


> >> weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon
> >> that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble.


> > I think that what you know is not correct. If I carry my gun where
> > everybody can see it, I don't need a concealed weapon permit. I don't
> > need anything. If I want to carry my gun concealed, then I need a permit,
> > and many places limit those quite severely.


> That's because you're in California. Different in NY and many other states:
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

I stand by what I posted. Did you look at the above site? It generally
supports what I posted, although there was more variance by state than I
expected. Some states forbid concealed carry entirely, there are no
permits. Some states require a concealed carry permit. Others don't.
The site doesn't say anything about concealed carry for New York, just
that you need a permit to carry a handgun.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Doug Kanter"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>> >> weapon. And AFAIK, in most states, having someone see your weapon
>> >> that is not properly concealed could get you into real trouble.
>
>
>> > I think that what you know is not correct. If I carry my gun where
>> > everybody can see it, I don't need a concealed weapon permit. I don't
>> > need anything. If I want to carry my gun concealed, then I need a
>> > permit,
>> > and many places limit those quite severely.
>
>
>> That's because you're in California. Different in NY and many other
>> states:
>> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
>
> I stand by what I posted. Did you look at the above site? It generally
> supports what I posted, although there was more variance by state than I
> expected. Some states forbid concealed carry entirely, there are no
> permits. Some states require a concealed carry permit. Others don't.
> The site doesn't say anything about concealed carry for New York, just
> that you need a permit to carry a handgun.

Frankly, I didn't check NY. I don't need to. I live here. When we get a
permit, we're given a copy of the laws regarding handguns. Unless you're a
law enforcement person, your handgun MUST be concealed. Period. End of
story. The only unofficial exceptions are places where nobody cares, like
deep in the woods of the Adirondack or Catskill mountains during hunting
season.

The site supports what you said about YOUR state, though. I wasn't arguing
with that.

In any case, whattya expect from a news organization? It's their job to
misunderstand guns and the laws which pertain to them.

And....here ya go - this is the site I was trying to remember earlier. It's
accurate. You've probably seen it: http://www.packing.org/

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Hang on a second! You believe buildings in DC are being hit by
mortar
> >> fire,
> >> and you're calling ME an idiot???
> >
> > Read what I wrote _again_, as your feeble brain apparently missed a
few
> > words. "making yourself SOUND LIKE an idiot" Does that help?
> > I don't insult people for no reason.
> >
> > Lena
>
> Let's make this simple: Do you, or do you not believe that buildings
in
> Washington D.C. have been hit by mortar fire in the past 50 years?
>
> Yes
> or
> No

Come on, haven't you figured it out by now? She spends most of her
time on an anim=E9 board. All her postings are aimed at creating and
maintaining a cartoon world in this thread to play in.=20

-aem

Dan Abel wrote:


>>That's because you're in California. Different in NY and many other states:
>>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
>
>
> I stand by what I posted. Did you look at the above site? It generally
> supports what I posted, although there was more variance by state than I
> expected. Some states forbid concealed carry entirely, there are no
> permits. Some states require a concealed carry permit. Others don't.
> The site doesn't say anything about concealed carry for New York, just
> that you need a permit to carry a handgun.
>


packing.org is a good resource for state-by-state handgun regulation.

God bless Vermont.

BTW, I wouldn't trust CNN to be an authority on gun laws. They appear
to have committed several felonies during an "investigative report" they
did recently regarding buying a .50 rifle without filling out the
necessary paperwork, then transported it to another state. (I predict
that the BATF comes down hard on the poor guy who sold the gun, thinking
it was a legal sale, and the CNN reporter and producer who set it up and
then flew the rifle back to Georgia will not be prosecuted at all.)

Best regards,
Bob

In article >, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

> Meanwhile, consider this, statistics say that most women are
> subject to what happened to your daughter. I sure was.

Most? I thought the numbers were 1 in 3 or 1 in 4?

Regards,
Ranee (to clarify, that's still horrible)

--
Remove Do Not and Spam to email

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

"aem" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Hang on a second! You believe buildings in DC are being hit by
mortar
> >> fire,
> >> and you're calling ME an idiot???
> >
> > Read what I wrote _again_, as your feeble brain apparently missed a
few
> > words. "making yourself SOUND LIKE an idiot" Does that help?
> > I don't insult people for no reason.
> >
> > Lena
>
> Let's make this simple: Do you, or do you not believe that buildings
in
> Washington D.C. have been hit by mortar fire in the past 50 years?
>
> Yes
> or
> No

Come on, haven't you figured it out by now? She spends most of her
time on an animé board. All her postings are aimed at creating and
maintaining a cartoon world in this thread to play in.

-aem

You're probably right. But, I'm having fun with this nut case. :-) Look at
it this way: If I have to see some of my taxes to toward housing, feeding
and medicating her, shouldn't I get something out of it?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Lena B Katz > wrote:
>
>
>> Assault rifles are capable of taking out cars. That's my working
>> definition.
>
>
> Thereby showing your ignorance about guns. Assault rifles are intended
> for shooting humans at short ranges. Many ordinary hunting rifles are
> much more powerful than assault rifles.

Never said i wouldn't take an honest correction. Googling shows that
assault rifles generally means AK-47s.

Lena

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "aem" > wrote in message
[snip]
> >Come on, haven't you figured it out by now? She spends most of her
> >time on an anim=E9 board. All her postings are aimed at creating and
> >maintaining a cartoon world in this thread to play in.
>
> You're probably right. But, I'm having fun with this nut case. :-)
Look at
> it this way: If I have to see some of my taxes to toward housing,
feeding
> and medicating her, shouldn't I get something out of it?

As long as you're all having fun I'll leave you to your play....For a
while I thought she was serious and I let it disturb me that someone
could be propagating such dangerous misinformation.

"aem" > wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
> "aem" > wrote in message
[snip]
> >Come on, haven't you figured it out by now? She spends most of her
> >time on an animé board. All her postings are aimed at creating and
> >maintaining a cartoon world in this thread to play in.
>
> You're probably right. But, I'm having fun with this nut case. :-)
Look at
> it this way: If I have to see some of my taxes to toward housing,
feeding
> and medicating her, shouldn't I get something out of it?

As long as you're all having fun I'll leave you to your play....For a
while I thought she was serious and I let it disturb me that someone
could be propagating such dangerous misinformation.

+++++++++++++

If she had any guts at all, she'd cruise over to rec.guns, try posting her
nonsense, and accept the resulting beating. :-)

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.

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

>Exploding bullets??? Right. They exist in larger sizes like 50mm, designed
>specifically for penetrating armored vehicles or walls. You've never heard
>of such a thing used in this country by criminals. The guns are too heavy
>(and impossible to conceal, or to transport with raising eyebrows), and the
>ammo's too expensive.

Sounds like something out of RoboCop. LOVE that movie!

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_

On Fri, 11 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
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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.......
>>
>> I said, in part of my message that you kindly deleted, that your source
>> was relatively unbiased. I'm not trying to say that gov't numbers can't
>> be faked/misleading, but I'm also not trying to say your numbers aren't
>> valid.
>>
>> NRA numbers might require a bit more homework... mostly on who did the
>> research and how biased they are.
>>
>> Lena
>
> If a link in an NRA story points directly to an FBI web site showing (for
> example) the number of crimes committed with certain types of guns, I think
> it's safe to assume the data is clean.

I don't trust either the FBI or the NRA to get their facts straight. No
one gets a carte blanche with me. They deserve some sort of checking, on
my part, or anyone else's. that's what an educated reader is supposed to
do.

For instance, FBI crime statistics may note how many "unarmed robberies"
occurred, without bothering to explain that most of these unarmed
robberies are multiple people assaulting one person (while yes, one on
one, a gun will make most people stop... will you bet on a gang of kids
stopping because of a gun?). Facts can be distorted and mislead (and, if
you can cite sources saying that most unarmed robberies are done by single
people, i'll go eat some humble pie(my source on this is what I'd call
controversial). I like learning.)

Lena

"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?

"Damsel in dis Dress" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug Kanter" >, if that's their real name,
> wrote:
>
>>Exploding bullets??? Right. They exist in larger sizes like 50mm, designed
>>specifically for penetrating armored vehicles or walls. You've never heard
>>of such a thing used in this country by criminals. The guns are too heavy
>>(and impossible to conceal, or to transport with raising eyebrows), and
>>the
>>ammo's too expensive.
>
> Sounds like something out of RoboCop. LOVE that movie!

The exploding rounds really do exist - something I learned recently. In
rec.guns, one of the favorite subjects is movie guns (whether accurate or
not). In the movie "Navy Seals", one of the team (known as "God") is in
charge of puncturing brick walls with a 50mm rifle during one of the
battles. Turns out it's entirely possible. Who'd a thunk?

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 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
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.......
>>>
>>> I said, in part of my message that you kindly deleted, that your source
>>> was relatively unbiased. I'm not trying to say that gov't numbers can't
>>> be faked/misleading, but I'm also not trying to say your numbers aren't
>>> valid.
>>>
>>> NRA numbers might require a bit more homework... mostly on who did the
>>> research and how biased they are.
>>>
>>> Lena
>>
>> If a link in an NRA story points directly to an FBI web site showing (for
>> example) the number of crimes committed with certain types of guns, I
>> think
>> it's safe to assume the data is clean.
>
> I don't trust either the FBI or the NRA to get their facts straight. No
> one gets a carte blanche with me. They deserve some sort of checking, on
> my part, or anyone else's. that's what an educated reader is supposed to
> do.
>
> For instance, FBI crime statistics may note how many "unarmed robberies"
> occurred, without bothering to explain that most of these unarmed
> robberies are multiple people assaulting one person (while yes, one on
> one, a gun will make most people stop... will you bet on a gang of kids
> stopping because of a gun?). Facts can be distorted and mislead (and, if
> you can cite sources saying that most unarmed robberies are done by single
> people, i'll go eat some humble pie(my source on this is what I'd call
> controversial). I like learning.)
>
> Lena

The FBI gets its data from local police departments. When's the last time
you put down your bag of Cheez Doodles, went down to your local precinct,
and asked to see their collected data?

Lena B Katz wrote:
[snips]
> > 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.
>
> Lena
>
> OB Food: Anyone got any clue why Oneida knives are perfectly weighted
for
> use as a slashing weapon?

Uhh, because the Oneida Indians were warriors who fought with the
colonists to defeat the British in the Revolutionary War?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "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.

Fine by me. The rest of the newsgroup might want to shoot you, 'cause
we're far off topic already. They might not want to page through even
more posts on the same subject.

> 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".

Most private citizens couldn't afford a gun, let alone a grenade. (please
don't make me rummage around for world per capita income. I can do it,
but... what's the point?).

Lena

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "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
>
> 2) You have missed your meds for quite a few days.

no... no... you don't get to tell me _that_ one until I tell you the one
about why Bush
didn't win the election. What's amatter with you, didja lose your place?

[[for all those briefly concerned about my sanity, yes, I am joking.]]

Lena

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

> Most private citizens couldn't afford a gun, let alone a grenade. (please
> don't make me rummage around for world per capita income. I can do it,
> but... what's the point?).

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.

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, aem wrote:
>
>>
>> Doug Kanter wrote:
>>> "aem" > wrote in message
>> [snip]
>>>> Come on, haven't you figured it out by now? She spends most of her
>>>> time on an animé board. All her postings are aimed at creating and
>>>> maintaining a cartoon world in this thread to play in.
>>>
>>> You're probably right. But, I'm having fun with this nut case. :-)
>> Look at
>>> it this way: If I have to see some of my taxes to toward housing,
>> feeding
>>> and medicating her, shouldn't I get something out of it?
>>
>> As long as you're all having fun I'll leave you to your play....For a
>> while I thought she was serious and I let it disturb me that someone
>> could be propagating such dangerous misinformation.
>
> What would you say was "dangerous misinformation"?
>
> Lena

Let's separate the two words "dangerous" and "misinformation".

In my opinion, *all* misinformation is dangerous in an intellectual sense.
And, 99% of what you've said here about guns is misinformation.

The other person may think that what you've said could be physically
dangerous if someone actually used that information. I have the flu, so I
don't have the energy to bother exploring that issue, but I suppose it's
possible.

But, the fact remains that virtually everything you've said about guns has
been complete nonsense. You know that. Why do you do it?

"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.

Get it?

You will now respond that you've been to some of the foreign countries
you've mentioned. But, that would be a silly thing to say, if you think it
somehow justifies all of your silly statements about guns.

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. 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? 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?

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

> > 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.

Sandi

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

>
> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Most private citizens couldn't afford a gun, let alone a grenade. (please
>> don't make me rummage around for world per capita income. I can do it,
>> but... what's the point?).
>
> 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

Lena

eagerly awaiting your sources, and your estimation of accuracy.

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.

--
Best
Greg

"Sandi" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> 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. 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? 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?
>
>> > 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? However,
> should the need arise, the appropriate technology is readily available.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Sandi
>

Uh oh. You're in big trouble now, Sandi. :-)

"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Most private citizens couldn't afford a gun, let alone a grenade.
>>> (please
>>> don't make me rummage around for world per capita income. I can do it,
>>> but... what's the point?).
>>
>> 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
>
> Lena
>
> eagerly awaiting your sources, and your estimation of accuracy.

Where did you come up with $30.00?