 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / February 2005number of boats with guns
Hi, We are working on a Power Squadron study of the "cruising lifestyle". We need estimates of the absolute number and percentages of cruising boats carrying weapons. That is firearms, not flare pistols, starter pistols, sling shots or spear guns. We are not interested in the debate of whether or not to carry weapons, or why cruisers carry. We wish to estimate the numbers that have chosen to and actually possess and carry while cruising, what they carry and where they go. We would like to break it down by: A - TYPE 1. hand gun 2. shot gun 3. rifle 4. line-throwing gun (safety equipment) 5. assault 6. cruiser grip, short barrel, large bore, home security weapons 7. other B - MARINIZED (special finish, stainless steel) 1. yes 2. no B - QUANTITY + CALIBER OF EACH WEAPON C - TYPE AND AMOUNT OF AMMUNITION CARRIED (mushroom, hollow point, slug, buck shot) D - HOW STORED E - CRUISING GROUNDS 1. America 2. Bahamas 3. Mexico 4. Canada 5. Central America 6. South America 7. Pacific Countries 8. Australia 9. Indian Ocean 10. Africa 11. Northern Europe 12. Mediterranean Is anyone aware of any similar studies? Any thoughts on how to collect this data? We suspect the numbers are very low but have been asked to find some data to support this conclusion. Thanks. Bob ranglin@interlog.com Probably wouldn't be too wise for any Canadians to admit carrying firearms on their boat. > A - TYPE > 1. hand gun [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > home security weapons > 7. other Somehow I think a flare gun should have been explicitly listed. Granted, it's safety equipment, but it'd be more likely to be present than a line-throwing gun. [HUMOR] I also note that Light Anti-Tank Weapons are also not listed. And what about Stinger missiles? [/HUMOR] Comment: I don't see much point to dealing with this kind of questioning; after all, what's the point? Question: Don't most countries consider a cruiser carrying weapons a *bad* thing?  SignatureJohn R. Campbell Speaker to Machines soup at tampabay dot rr dot com "Grace is sufficient so Joy was let go." - Heather L. Campbell "Faith manages ... even though she didn't get promoted" - me Why OS X? Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows > We are working on a Power Squadron study of the "cruising lifestyle". We > need estimates of the absolute number and percentages of cruising boats [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bob > ranglin@interlog.com This is an interesting post. Why does Bob Ranglin, working for Power Squadron, mail under the ID Spam fighter (spamcollector@sympatico.ca)? And why should anybody volunteer their personal information to this dubious signature? Especially as carrying personal firearms are prohibited in most countries one would visit as a sailor. Dag Stenberg (far enough away to feel safe from prying) >> We are working on a Power Squadron study of the "cruising lifestyle". We >> need estimates of the absolute number and percentages of cruising boats [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Dag Stenberg >(far enough away to feel safe from prying) Don't know about the userid, but if you are carrying firearms outside US waters and plan to reply, PLEASE LIE! The last thing we need is to have an "official auxiliary" (I speak of foreign perceptions) of the US Gov't producing a study telling customs officials worldwide that they should shake down every US flag yacht looking for guns. Granted they may believe we're all armed to the teeth anyway, buy no need to reinforce any suspicions. There is no 2nd Amendment issue of preserving rights here. The 2nd Amendment ends at the border. I'm neither advocating carrying guns nor frowning on it. Just being practical. My opinion and worth what you paid for it. ____________________________________________________________ Glen "Wiley" Wilson <usenet1 SPAMNIX at world wide wiley dot com> To reply, lose the capitals and do the obvious. Take a look at cpRepeater, my NMEA data integrator, repeater, and logger at http://www.worldwidewiley.com/ >Don't know about the userid, but if you are carrying firearms outside >US waters and plan to reply, PLEASE LIE! The last thing we need is to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >My opinion and worth what you paid for it. When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice of confucious: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubts. Questions like this benefit nobody. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Questions like this benefit nobody. How right! May I carry a sword? Saber? Scimitar? Or better, a cutlass? > May I carry a sword? Saber? Scimitar? Or better, a cutlass? There's a great button I saw in a catalog: "When guns are outlawed... Can we use swords?" You know, the difference between citizen and subject often pivots on the question of weapon possession. SignatureJohn R. Campbell Speaker to Machines soup at tampabay dot rr dot com "Grace is sufficient so Joy was let go." - Heather L. Campbell "Faith manages ... even though she didn't get promoted" - me Why OS X? Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows >>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >>of confucious: >> >>It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's >>mouth and remove all doubts. I believe that this quote came from Samuel Johnson. But as Confucious actually said: " To know is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge." >>>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >>>of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > " To know is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true >knowledge." I bow to your wisdom. Where I read the quote it was attributed to Confucious Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) > I bow to your wisdom. Where I read the quote it was attributed to > Confucious > Weebles Wobble > (but they don't fall down) I have a T-shirt with a picture of Albert Einstein on it with his quotation: "If we knew what we were doing, we couldn't call it research." >>>>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >>>>of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Weebles Wobble > (but they don't fall down) As Confucious also said: A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it, is committing another mistake. :) >>>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >>>of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > " To know is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true >knowledge." K'ung-fu-tzu or Kongfuzi is usually rendered in English as Confucius Brian W > >>>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice > >>>of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > K'ung-fu-tzu or Kongfuzi is usually rendered in English as Confucius And in modern standard Chinese he's known as Kongzi. The appellation 'Kongfuzi' seems to have only been recorded once in Chinese. Some have suggested it may have been a creation of Jesuit scholars. Cheers Bil How about 4 lb swivel guns fore and aft and 6 pounders at the rail? >>When faced with questions like this, it is best to follow the advice >>of confucious: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > May I carry a sword? Saber? Scimitar? Or better, a cutlass? Your'e kidding! You want law abiding citizens to tell a government group what firearms they have on their boat? Gimme a break!!!! Doug > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Bob > ranglin@interlog.com spam fighter...i will let you know if you try and rob me or my my boat...... richard colorado I just remembered. Spam Fighter is one of JAXes aliases. > spam fighter...i will let you know if you > try and rob me or my my boat...... > > richard > colorado You know, it's funny. This question comes up all the time on the net, but rarely, if ever, out here where people are actually doing it (we are about to leave La Paz for points south). I can't remember the last time the guns topic came up while talking with other cruisers. The sense I get is that very few are actually carrying guns. - Dan > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Bob > ranglin@interlog.com > You know, it's funny. This question comes up all the time on the net, but > rarely, if ever, out here where people are actually doing it (we are about > to leave La Paz for points south). I can't remember the last time the > guns topic came up while talking with other cruisers. The sense I get is > that very few are actually carrying guns. > - Dan Very few admit it. While cruising a couple of years ago, I was amazed how many carried guns aboard. Probably better than 50% of the folks I talked to about such things. Doug s/v Callista >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> Bob >> ranglin@interlog.com >> You know, it's funny. This question comes up all the time on the net, but >> rarely, if ever, out here where people are actually doing it (we are about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Doug >s/v Callista idiot >>> You know, it's funny. This question comes up all the time on the net, >>> but [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > idiot To borrow a comment from another thread: It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. --Samuel Johnson. Thank you for oping your mouth and contributing nothing. Doug s/v Callista > "WaIIy" <eIvez@ChangeThisPart.com> wrote in message >>idiot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Doug > s/v Callista he's just mad you opened your mouth and told! Now Wally's worried the Canadian CG is going to board and search for his .44Magnum when he goes to Leamington this summer. >> "WaIIy" <eIvez@ChangeThisPart.com> wrote in message >>>idiot [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Canadian CG is going to board and search for his .44Magnum when he goes >to Leamington this summer. hee hee I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions should be made with a bit of discretion. > I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats discussions > should be made with a bit of discretion. We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Leanne > I wonder how many >gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of >nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. > >Leanne For several years, I worked where I had to carry cash to make night deposits after closing in a bad area. I carried a gun on me. On three occasions I had people attempt to rob me. I never found out if I would have pulled the trigger. On all three occasions when I pulled out the weapon the encounter ended abruptly without the gun even being fully pointed at the robbers. Had they been armed I would have left the gun where it was and handed over the cash as I am not good enough for a quick draw contest with anyone. My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. For this same reason, I keep a pump shotgun in the bedroom. Even in the dark, bad guys know the sound of a 12 gauge being racked. Shooting someone with it is not required in order for the gun to prevent bad things happening. Personally, I much prefer for the kind of outcome I had. It is much better for punks to run away than to spend the next three days talking to the police after you legitimately shoot them. And talking to the police for three days is much superior to being killed myself or having my family harmed. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) WeeblesWobble@buttheydontfalldown.com wrote: > My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. > For this same reason, I keep a pump shotgun in the bedroom. Even in > the dark, bad guys know the sound of a 12 gauge being racked. As I have heard, this usually results in a family member getting shot. Like your daughter who has had a bad dream and tries to get comfort from her parents. Dag Stenberg >WeeblesWobble@buttheydontfalldown.com wrote: >> My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dag Stenberg "As I have heard" "this usually" Gimme a break >>WeeblesWobble@buttheydontfalldown.com wrote: >>> My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Gimme a break Folks who won't learn from others' experience are destined to learn another way. Brian W >>>WeeblesWobble@buttheydontfalldown.com wrote: >>>> My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Brian W Folks who rely on other's experiences to live their lives... you get it. >WeeblesWobble@buttheydontfalldown.com wrote: >> My point is, most of the time, presence of a gun stops most threats. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dag Stenberg No daughters sleeping in my house. If you are moving in my house at night, you are a legitimate target. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) When I was in Alaska (Kaktovik, north slope area), I bought a little nylon stock Remmington 22. I really liked that thing and decided to bring it back to Calif with me on vaction where my home was. I didn't have a proper gun case, so I wrapped it in a towel and taped it up a bit. At the time, firearms on aircraft was making the news. This was the late 60's. When I boarded the aircraft (C-46) in Kaktovik, I thought I'd be nice, and check with the pilot. I asked him where I should put it, and he looked a bit puzzled at my question. Finally, he suggested placing it between my seat and the window...if that was OK with me. When I got to Fairbanks, I asked again. The response from the pilot was that while a pain to worry about , we'd better play the game and put it in the cockpit. In Anchorage, people were more business-like about it, but still not overly concerned. By the time I got to San Francisco, and checked in, declaring my firearm, you would have thought I was toting a sack of rattlesnakes, and just looking for an excuse to set them loose. One person, (airline worker), actually held it between thumb and forefinger, and held it away from his body as if expecting it to go off any minute. The final hop, a commuter, was piloted by an AirForce vet. He said to do whatever...he could have cared less. So it's a matter of perception, isn't it? Would I have one on my boat? I honestly don't know...but probably not...the San Juan and Gulf Islands area isn't a war zone....:) So no reason to have one aboard. Norm B who grew up with guns, and has all the emotional reaction at seeing one as he would a toaster., and yes, I've twice had one pointed at me at close range. >> I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >discussions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Leanne I wonder how many gun owners have stopped a crime without resorting to firing the weapon? You make a good point thoug, if you are unable to pull the trigger, don't own a gun. > We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should > we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many > gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of > nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. > > Leanne I NEVER travel without a firearm, period. I put up with all the tagging and airport security BS, and follow all the Laws that are in place, where I travel, but I ALWAYS have a firearm with me when I travel. This is a holdout from when I traveled all year long, for my employer in the bush of alaska. It isn't a giant problem if you keep up on the Law where your going and what it takes to comply. It does take extra time at security checkpoints, but if your prepared, it isn't prohibitive. I also hold an US FFL (Federal Firearms License) and compliance with those Laws are a whole lot harder to deal with. When I had a boat, it had a Customs Security Safe built in to the Stateroom that had both a Combination Lock and Customs Security Seal Hasp Attachment, so that any Customs Official could seal the Safe, while in Port, the same as any big ship has. Worked fine whereever I went. Kept a semiauto rifle in 308 Nato, a Stainless 12Ga Shotgun, and my Browning HiPower 9mm semiauto pistol in there along with all the "required" Tax Free Booze. Canadians Customs used to pitch a fit whenever I came thru, but since they could seal the Safe, it just caused them to have to do a lot more "Paperwork", which they didn't like. Bruce in alaska Signatureadd a <2> before @ Bruce in Alaska wrote: >>We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should >>we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > travel. This is a holdout from when I traveled all year long, for my > employer in the bush of alaska. ... This could explain why the murder rate in Alaska is higher than in New York City. > I NEVER travel without a firearm, period. ... Stay away from Sweden then. Dag Stenberg > > I NEVER travel without a firearm, period. ... > > Stay away from Sweden then. > > Dag Stenberg I have never want to go to Sweden, and certainly wouldn't violate any local laws just to visit some place that I have never want to go. Bruce in alaska Signatureadd a <2> before @ "Leanne" <leanne@islc.net> wrote....... . I wonder how many > gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of > nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy. Depends. I knew a man who ran a gas station in D.C. He got robbed several times. He said that once they had your money the crooks always just turned and walked away. He could have shot any or all of them but the $50 or $100 wasn't worth the hassle. OTOH,when trespassers threatened his livestock, he couldn't shoot them soon enough! Didn't kill any because he started shooting too soon but it wasn't from lack of effort and he gave them some birdshot to take home. >>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Leanne Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under. Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than than a criminal. Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a liability. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html >>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed a law requiring gun ownership. In the 2 decades since this happened, Morton Grove has maintained the rate of increase in violent crime of any Chicago suburbs. At the same time, Kennesaw has had the lowest rate of property and personal crime and violence. The only 2 handgun murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the community. Think about it. If you are a criminal, are you going to go to the one community where everyone is required to have a gun or the one where nobody is allowed to have one. The problem with gun control is that its only obeyed by the law abiding. Criminals are generally unaffected. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >>>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the > community. You should get your fact straight before you parrot the arguments of others. Kennesaw has a low crime rate, but not lower than many other "bedroom suburbs" around Atlanta. If you compare to Massachusetts, which gun advocates decry as a failed experiment in ultra liberal gun control (we require a license for ownership), the Kennesaw crime rate is rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for instance, are much more common than in the city I live in. >>>>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for >instance, are much more common than in the city I live in. Not sure where you are getting your stats (I live in the Atlanta area and worked for many years in Kennesaw and am well aware of the local crime stats, esp. burglary and violent crime rates) Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >>back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun >>>ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and worked for many years in Kennesaw and am well aware of the local > crime stats, esp. burglary and violent crime rates) FBI. Of course, I'm not familiar with the various towns and their demographics, but is easy to find communities in GA with crime rates as low or lower than Kennesaw. And most of the "bedroom suburbs" in MA have a much lower rates. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm >You should get your fact straight before you parrot the arguments of >others. Kennesaw has a low crime rate, but not lower than many other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for >instance, are much more common than in the city I live in. How's Australia doing? >>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented. About 750 accidental shootings took place. Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing themselves or others. The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be done as many means are available. Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to kill people and the environment without human intervention! :) So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery. Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. >>>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing > themselves or others. The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense. The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful. The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof alone that gun ownership is dangerous. > The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be > done as many means are available. Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide. Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will not be a gun handy. Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems to be an suicide risk. > Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is > an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words, > 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member, > friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and > armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals. More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's pissed you ran over his trash can again. In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds of killing a friend in a barroom fight. > The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed, > they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late > night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling. Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that arming everyone makes you safer. The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and each other. >In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the >northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between >acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with >an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may >protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds >of killing a friend in a barroom fight. Only if you are a criminal. It is illegal to carry a gun into a bar in Georgia, even with a weapons carry permit Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? >>>>> I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >>>> [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing > themselves and each other. Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are not southern states? From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern. However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder rates than Philadelphia. New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than Washington. > In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, > Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were southen cities. Get a life. Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. Your knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you looking at 1810 census? > Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are > not southern states? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, >> Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? About 5 years ago, just before Christmas, my son was car jacked coming home from an evening with his friends. He was on the way home, pulled over to buy some gas and continued on his way. When he stopped at a stop sign, the car jacker jumped in the passenger door with a gun in his hand. He ordered my son to drive giving him directions. During the "ride" the car jacker was leaning out of the passenger window wildly pointing the gun at passing cars and people on the street. After getting to the car jacker's destination, he told my son to stop. Then he demanded my son take off his new and expensive leather coat. My son is a weight lifter and extremely strong. At that point, my son did something quite stupid. Rather than taking off his jacket, he reached over to the car jacker and grabbed him intending to beat the hell out of him. During the struggle, the car jacker managed to get off a shot. The bullet went through my son's neck and lodged in the opposite shoulder where it still is today. The bullet just grazed his neckbone and missed the major arteries and esophagous. A fraction of an inch either way and he would have been dead. The car jacker then jumped out of the car and got into another car and drove away. Witnesses heard the struggle and got the other cars description. My son stepped on the gas to drive away. He made it about a block or so when he started to lose conciousness and crashed into a tree. He was able to get out of the car and went to the nearest house to call for help. He knocked at the door, told the homeowner he had been shot and needed help. The homeowner told him to get out or he would shoot him again. He went to a second house calling for help. At the second house he lost conciousness on the porch and that was where the ambulance picked him up. I'll not bother with the rest of the story including the total incompetance of the police department (that is a story in it's own). Trust me when I tell you that police departments don't give a damn and can be prejudiced when the detective is the same race as the car jacker. This includes lying by the detective on his final report. Think a little bit about how my wife and I reacted when we got the call from the hospital. Think about the agony a parent suffers when there is the real possibility that your child might not make it. The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the receiving end. Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. > About 5 years ago, just before Christmas, my son was car jacked coming > home [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. I hope you have also learned to lock your doors when driving. ... > The moral of the story is this, had my son been carrying, he could have > pulled his weapon while the car jacker was leaning out the window wildly > waving the gun around. The car jacker would have been the one at the > receiving end. Or, your son would be dead. I have a similar story: A very close friend was hitchhiking and got picked up by some kids who had just been rejected from the Hell's Angels. As he got out they shot him in the back of the head, just to prove how tough they were. The gun, of course, was the kid's father's, and was kept in the house for "protection." > Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. Let me guess: you live in Georgia. >... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Or, your son would be dead. He could well have been dead after the car jacking anyway. The car jacker didn't have on a mask. He was easily recognized by my son when the police showed him the picture they had of him. The police did nothing. They didn't even bother to fingerprint the door handle of the car my son was driving. They had picked up that guy based on descriptions from witnesses. Not like TV, no checking for gun powder residue, no fingerprinting, nothing. They let him go when a group of his friends came to the station to swear he was with them. The detective in charge of the case never even came to the hospital (which was about 2 miles from his station) to interview my son. After my son was released from the hospital, we had to drive 20 miles to the police station to file a report. That is when they showed the picture to my son and he identified him. They said they would call my son in for a lineup (but it would take a couple of weeks because of the holidays). That never happened. I was there and witnessed the total incompetance firsthand. The incident put so much strain on us as a family and seeing the total indifference and incompetance of the detective, we never pursued it further. We were never again contacted by the detective. His final report (which I got to read a year or so later) said my son was unable to identify the assailant in a lineup. There never was a lineup. Case closed. The car jacker is walking the streets today. >I have a similar story: A very close friend was hitchhiking and got >picked up by some kids who had just been rejected from the Hell's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Let me guess: you live in Georgia. NE Ohio >... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Let me guess: you live in Georgia. and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners? Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) ... > and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners? What makes you say that? All I've done is point out that there seems to be regional cultural differences that may account for the different points of view on gun control. Until my recent research, I was unaware that Southerners were so thin skinned that they tended to shoot each at the slightest provocation. Its ironic that many Southerner gun advocates will talk about protecting their family from burglary, when their high murder rate can be attributed to the large number of friend and acquaintance murders. Here in the Northeast, there are almost no murders outside of the inner city. I live in a city of about 100,000 that has about 1 murder every 5 or 10 years. >... >> and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners? > >What makes you say that? I think it was the "you must be from Georgia" remark you made to another poster you disagreed with. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >>... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think it was the "you must be from Georgia" remark you made to > another poster you disagreed with. You presume far too much. As I've said, I was merely pointing out the cultural difference. His response to the assault is to carry a gun. This is behavior I've come to associate, for better or worse, with Southerners. Are you claiming this isn't justified? Since you seem to think carrying is a virtue, then why wouldn't you assume I was paying him a compliment? Get a grip, Weeble, you're wobbling all over the place. I'm hearing a common theme. driving with doors unlocked, hitchhiking. Anyone that doesn;t take responibility for their own safety cannot blame anyone but themselves. Doug > ... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Let me guess: you live in Georgia. >I'm hearing a common theme. driving with doors unlocked, hitchhiking. >Anyone that doesn;t take responibility for their own safety cannot blame >anyone but themselves. > >Doug Rest snipped for brevity. The common theme is that the criminals have the right to try to harm us and if we don't properly protect ourselves, it is our own fault? The car in this case was a vintage Ford Mustang. Manual doorlocks. Forgetting to lock your doors after dropping your friends off makes the car jacker attempt OK. It was my son's fault for not locking the door. Don't want to trample on a car jacker's constitutional rights to attempt it so it has to be my son's fault. My house has "low" windows. I suppose a house robber has the constitutional right to attempt to rob my house. If he succeeds, it is my fault because I don't have steel bars over the windows. The lady that gets raped on her way back to her car in the mall parking lot had it coming. The rapist has constitutional rights to try to attack her. She was not a karate black belt and didn't have pepper spray at her fingertips to ward off the attack. The car that got stolen from the same mall parking lot was the owner's fault. The owner didn't have a proper burglar alarm system installed nor did he have a contract for GPS tracking of the vehicle. The car thief had the constitutional right to steal the car, the car owner didn't protect it properly so it is the car owner's fault. I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their nefarious deeds and it is up to the potential victim to take whatever steps are required to protect himself and prevent the crime or it is the victim's fault. > I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would >be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their >nefarious deeds and it is up to the potential victim to take whatever steps >are required to protect himself and prevent the crime or it is the victim's >fault. Certainly its not the victim's fault but we do have responsibilities that go along with being free and primary is to take care of ourselves. Guns are a part of that equation for many of us. If someone doesn't believe in using a gun, then they are responsible to use other means to keep themselves safe. Not responsible to someone else, but responsible to themselves. Nobody else is going to take care of us. Not the police certainly. They will not be there when bad things happen. You can count on the police coming after the fact and perhaps finding the criminal and perhaps doing little or nothing. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >> I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would >>be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Weebles Wobble >(but they don't fall down) My point. That is one of the reasons I now carry (Ohio recently passed the right to carry law). No kids at home so I do keep a firearm within ready reach in the bedroom. A trusty old .357 magnum loaded with semi wadcutters (I reload all of my own shells). I have been a gun owner for over 40 years. I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds. I am a life long member of the NRA. In the mall I mentioned, over a 1,000 cars a year are stolen. It is not reported because it would be "bad for business". Not too long ago, a serial rapist was working the mall parking lot. It wasn't until victim 16 that it made the newspapers. The police needed help solving the crime. Why wasn't it reported earlier? "Bad for business". I happen to believe that we are our own first line of defense. We must take precautions to protect ourselves. My son was a victim, but hardly through his own fault. Forgetting to lock a car door does not excuse the car jacker and I as the parent have many "choice words" for those that would say otherwise. >>> I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that >>> would [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I have fired 10's of thousands of rounds. I am a life long member of the > NRA. Good. That the spirit! > In the mall I mentioned, over a 1,000 cars a year are stolen. It is not > reported because it would be "bad for business". Business trumps safety every time. > Not too long ago, a serial rapist was working the mall parking lot. It > wasn't until victim 16 that it made the newspapers. The police needed help > solving the crime. Why wasn't it reported earlier? "Bad for business". Probably. > I happen to believe that we are our own first line of defense. We must > take > precautions to protect ourselves. Exactly. > My son was a victim, but hardly through his own fault. Forgetting to lock > a > car door does not excuse the car jacker and I as the parent have many > "choice words" for those that would say otherwise. I'm truly sorry for your loss. But it is a fact that if the doors were locked then this tragety might have been avoided. Nothing excuses a criminal from anything. It is that one is responsible to as much as possible to insure one's safety. I'd be carrying if The Peoples Republic Of Maryland would allow it. Doug >>I'm hearing a common theme. driving with doors unlocked, hitchhiking. >>Anyone that doesn;t take responibility for their own safety cannot blame [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and > if we don't properly protect ourselves, it is our own fault? Yup, but I don't see criminals or anybody else having a "right" to harm anybody. Everybody has a right and responsibility to protect themselves. > The car in this case was a vintage Ford Mustang. Manual doorlocks. > Forgetting to lock your doors after dropping your friends off makes the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it > has to be my son's fault. Has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with protecting one's self. There are bad people out there. Taking precautions increases one's chances of survival. > My house has "low" windows. I suppose a house robber has the > constitutional > right to attempt to rob my house. If he succeeds, it is my fault because I > don't have steel bars over the windows. Once again rights have nothing to do with. Not sure how the Constitution figures into this discussion. OK, it's not your fault that you are dead. Feel better that you were right? If you live in an area where home invasion is likely to happen, then lock your doors, put up bars, or whatever. Your safety is your responsibility. > The lady that gets raped on her way back to her car in the mall parking > lot > had it coming. Of course not. That is a different sutuation. But I would hope she has learned self defense, is carrying pepper spray, or a gun. > The rapist has constitutional rights to try to attack her. There's that Consitiutional thing again. No one has a constitutional right to hurt anybody except in the case of self defense. > She was not a karate black belt and didn't have pepper spray at her > fingertips to ward off the attack. She would be better prepared if she did. There is a reason they call them "bad guys". They don't play be the rules of proper conduct. > The car that got stolen from the same mall parking lot was the owner's > fault. No, but the owner is the one that no longer has a car. > The owner didn't have a proper burglar alarm system installed nor > did he have a contract for GPS tracking of the vehicle. Yup. So his car is now gone. > The car thief had > the constitutional right to steal the car, the car owner didn't protect it > properly so it is the car owner's fault. There's that constitution thing again. What do any of your arguments have to do with Constitutional Rights? It all has to do with personal responsibility. If you want to stay alive and keep your stuff, you have to take steps to do so. Has nothing to do with Rights, it has to do with reality. > I could go on and on. Please point out to me where the law says that would > be robbers, murderers, and thieves have the right to attempt to their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > victim's > fault. Once again, it has nothing to do with Rights, it has to do with the reality of the world. It is your responsibility to protect your life and property because no one else will. If you think the Government is doing it you are fooling yourself. A very moving story. So glad it had a happy ending for you. You are absolutely right in everything you say. Joe >About 5 years ago, just before Christmas, my son was car jacked coming home >from an evening with his friends. He was on the way home, pulled over to [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Does my son carry today, do I carry today? You can bet your life on it. > Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were > southen cities. I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada. > Get a life. Get an education. > Also, if you get murdered you are just as > dead in a city of 500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people. So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem. > Your > knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you > looking at 1810 census? All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000, according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us what mistake you think I made. >> Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or >> are not southern states? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, >>> Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you keep you head. >> Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were >> southen cities. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>>> In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit, >>>> Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities? So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you claim now. > Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you > keep you head. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>>>> Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern >>>>> cities? Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm not going to waste any more time with him. > So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you > claim now. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >>>>>> Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern >>>>>> cities? What's that matter? Sarcasm lost on you? Frankly, you seemed to be trying make a point, but your lack of communication skills have made that impossible. > Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm > not going to waste any more time with him. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >>>>>>> Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all >>>>>>> southern cities? Jeff Morris-- I've just read all your posts on this subject. The more I read the greater my insight into your personality. I have concluded that you should immediately apply for full membership to the Idiots Club. Joe I think part of the problem is that in the south if you kill someone you are call a murderer and sent to jail. In Massachusetts you are called a senator and reelected for life. JR > Jeff Morris-- > > I've just read all your posts on this subject. The more I read the > greater my insight into your personality. I have concluded that you > should immediately apply for full membership to the Idiots Club. >Joe > I think part of the problem is that in the south if you kill someone >you are call a murderer and sent to jail. In Massachusetts you are >called a senator and reelected for life. >JR Snort, gag, chuckle, mess. Now I have to clean my nightime tea from keyboard and monitor. :) But, it was worth it. I luved it! Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot of the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable. >>>>>I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats >>>> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and > each other. That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider credible. > Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot > of > the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable. >That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, >there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider >credible. In other words, it disagrees with your preconceived notions. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) >>That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, >>there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Weebles Wobble > (but they don't fall down) John Lott has been discredited by gun rights supporters, not opponents. He has done such things as fabricate data, quote nonexistent surveys, and use unsound methods for analysis. One of his first detractors was the right-wing Washington Times. His creation of an Internet persona named Mary Rosh to sing his own praise and denigrate his opponents was, in the words of a guns rights reporter, "beyond creepy." The problem is, people who don't care about the truth continue to claim Lott as a credible source. http://www.vdare.com/malkin/johnlott.htm Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of evidence that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed. Doug > That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However, > there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>>Greg wrote: >Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support >the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Doug None of the current gun laws really address the use of guns in crimes. If they focused on criminal use of guns as opposed to the possession of weapons in general they would probably have more effect. If criminals knew that merely having a gun on them while committing a felony meant life without parole, quickly you would see that many criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences. The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems common sense to me. Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all - criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'? A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message. Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to protect yourself. I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave socialism. This may work for some things, but not for personal safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent part of that. Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither do you. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) ... > The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since > their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun > crime. Where do you get this nonsense??? First of all, gun ownership was already severely limited in Australia. Second, the buy-back program only applied to certain types of weapons, mainly semi-automatic and pump action weapons, and exemptions were granted for legitimate needs. This was not a "total ban." Since very few Australians were armed in the first place, its hard to justify the claim that crime increased dramatically because a few shotguns were turned in. In fact, the statistics don't show any particular affect of the buy-back. Its easy to find a few anomalies, but in a population where there are less than 100 gun homicides a year, its easy to be misled by statistics. If you look at the latest report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, its clear that the use of guns in murder, attempted murder, and robberies has steadily gone down in the last five years. However, since there are relatively few guns there, the overall crime rates are not greatly affect. Weeble, its OK to have your opinions, but please stop making bullshit claims without doing research. ... > Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have > guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither > do you. Actually, I do. >>Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support >>the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would > quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences. I doubt it. There is a reason they are called criminals. Studies have shown that when a criminal commits a crime, he/she pretty much never considers the consequences. We have many laws that make penalties harsher when a gun is even carried let alone used. Makes no real difference. > The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since > their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun > crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are > unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems > common sense to me. Same thanig happened in Britain. > Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able > to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all - > criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on > your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'? Exactly! Who was it said that "An armed society is a polite society"? > A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this > vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message. > Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the > crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to > protect yourself. Absolutely!!! > I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the > nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave > socialism. Which is a absolute failure there and most anyplace it has been attempted. > This may work for some things, but not for personal > safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or > riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on > that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent > part of that. You are correct, sir! > Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have > guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither > do you. We have to live in the reality of this world, warts and all. > Weebles Wobble > (but they don't fall down) > Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support > the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming > that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. <snip> you didn't see Bowling for Columbine did you. put aside all the ad hominem invective reserved for American patriot Michael Moore and suggest reasons why all of the countries mentioned in the film have; severe restrictions on gun ownership and coincidentally violent crime rates that range from 10 to 100 times lower per capita than the USA, including your country's best friend by the way and No, it's not the UK <snip> > The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts > of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, > to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and > each other. Oh that's silly. What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the average joe on the street. I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun today, you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter nonsense. Again, using the statistics that you posted, criminals and insane people account for the majority of all firearm related events. In short, "crazy" people, because only crazy people murder others - or themselves. Yet you would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves, family, and friends. Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics, if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from gun violence. With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting individual. So, do you consistently apply your logic to most things in your life, or just guns? Or do you have reason to fear your family members? <snip> If this turns out to be a double reply, sorry, but it seems my first response was lost in cyberspace... > The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts > of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, > to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and > each other. Oh that's silly. What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the average joe on the street. I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun today, you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter nonsense. Again, using the statistics that you posted, criminals and insane people account for the majority of all firearm related events. In short, "crazy" people, because only crazy people murder others - or themselves. Yet you would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves, family, and friends. Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And those are considered "accidents", mostly. Again, using your own statistics, if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from gun violence. With the number of cars on the street though, you have a far greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting individual. So, do you consistently apply your logic to most things in your life, or just guns? Or do you have reason to fear your family members? >Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against >private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >greater chance of encountering an incompetent driver than a crazy gun toting >individual. One of the statistics I remember from the era of Vietnam was that many more people were killed every year on american highways that in 'nam. Many people have irrational fears far out of step with the risks. We ban drugs because they are dangerous but we lose 50 times as many people to legal substances - cigarettes and alcohol. We are as a nation hysterical about the dangers of terrorism when there has been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. Are terrorists dangerous? Perhaps, but nobody will ever be able to take over a jet with just a box cutter again. The only way they did on 9/11 is that the old paradigm was that if you sit down and shut up during a hijacking you are more likely to survive than if you try to interfere. The fourth plane - where people knew what was happening - is proof of this. Had they known at the beginning, they would probably all still be alive. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) > <snip> > > If this turns out to be a double reply, sorry, but it seems my first > response was lost in cyberspace... It got here, but I was too tired to respond, and I'm sure most sane people are getting tired of this too. >>The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those parts >>of the country where people insist on the right, even the responsibility, >>to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing themselves and >>each other. > > Oh that's silly. No, I find it a bit sad. But mainly it explains why people from some regions are so insistent on carrying guns. > What you are doing is equating criminals and insane people with the average > joe on the street. What you're claiming is that you have to be "insane" to commit suicide. Others have claimed those who fail at their first attempt are doomed to succeed soon anyways. Frankly, I'm not so callous as to write off 15000 lives a year that way. Are you actually claiming that if your child gets depressed, you'd hand him a gun and tell him to get it over with? That's what you're saying when you write off suicides by claiming "they're insane, so they don't count." > I've heard similar lines before in local groups - person buys a gun today, > you just bet they will be shooting up a day care tomorrow. Utter nonsense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would punish me and everyone else that wishes to protect themselves, family, > and friends. So, if you get into a fight with your neighbor, and he shoots you, that doesn't count because he's obviously a criminal? So it doesn't matter how high the murder rate actually is, because only "crazy people" commit murder? OK, then perhaps I should rephrase my comments so they'll be more acceptable to you. The murder rate in the South is 30% (or more) higher than the national average. In Louisiana it 150% higher! In the Northeast, the rates are less half the average. Thus, would you say that people in GA are almost three times crazier than in MA? Is there something in the GA water that makes people three times more likely to be criminals? > Accepting YOUR logic, I assume that you also don't own a car and are against > private car ownership - leaving the driving to "government" agents. So you're into stupid analogies. That figures. A car provides a benefit for me. Owning a gun simply increases my risk. > The > slaughter on our hiways matches or exceeds firearms related events. And > those are considered "accidents", mostly. No, almost half of them are alcohol related. I call that a crime, not an accident. BTW, the fatality rate from cars in GA is more than double the rate in MA. Why am I not surprised? > Again, using your own statistics, > if I have sane family, self included, I actually have little to fear from > gun |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message