> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:51 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Gun Company Must Pay Teacher's Widow
>
>
> > > > Since we've yet to try it seems stubborn to claim that.
> > >
> > > So by tacking on more laws that criminals pay no attention to, we
> > > are going to stop them from getting guns? Ok.
> >
> > Exactly - that's what I meant. Because the reason we do
> enact laws is
> > so that criminals can pay no attention to them.
> >
> > So, any law that is ever flouted is a bad law?
> >
>
> No, but based on the statistics of how many guns are used in
> crimes that are illegally obtained, see your stats below,
> what are more laws going to do to stop these people? You
> still haven't answered that question. Except that, oh we
> haven't tried it yet. Well we haven't tried national
> healthcare yet either. You don't see us rushing to do that
> either do you.
Well, I'd like to.
However my original point remains: there are so many illegal firearms
because there are so many firearms in general. Any action that
decreases the general number of firearms will also decrease the general
number of illegal firearms.
> > Not sure how it can... Since I'm a gun owner myself (tho
> not a regular
> > user). My father spent several years teaching firearm and hunting
> > safety and taught my brother and I well.
>
> More people should be taught well, rather than not allow them
> to own guns. I don't know how you cannot consider yourself a
> gun control advocate.
Oh- I'm sorry, I didn't know that "leftist" and "control control
advocate" were synonimous.
Well, perhaps I am both upon reflection, but labels, I feel, only serve
border our expectations.
> > By that statement I meant that people tend to stockpile
> both weapons
> > and ammunition unreasonabuly. There is no legitimate reason for
> > private citizen to have thousands od rounds of ammo.
>
> I don't know anyone that has thousands of rounds of ammo. If
> they do so what. They can't fire them all at once? I don't
> see why you are against people having ammo? The ammo itself
> doesn't do any harm.
My point exactly: why have so many weapons, so much ammo, that you can't
possibly use? The point is, again, a matter of degree.
> > If you store your guns locked and unloaded with ammo
> separately locked
> > then they just can't serve that purpose. If you store them
> loaded and
> > in the open (such as a gun cabinet) then it's pretty likely that a
> > stealthy burgalar could reach them before you do.
>
> I have most of my guns in a gunsafe in the basement. Keypad
> activated. He could get to it but unless he knows my pin, he
> ain't getting in. I have a small gunsafe by my bed,
> fingerpad activated. I can be in that safe in under 30
> seconds. And yes it is loaded. All I have to do is chamber
> the round.
So, assuming that you're asleep, can we say, conservatively, that it
would take upwards of a minute to actually obtain the gun? And that at
that point the criminal may have been in your home for an unspecified
amount of time?
Using the stats from Gun Advocates (in which, they, say that most crime
can be prevented with the simple brandishing of a gun) and considering
the very unlikely chance that you will actually be burgularized while at
home (most happen while you're out) it seems like actually having a
loaded gun may not be necessary.
The chances of you getting robbed while at home (even dependent upon
location) are very small. The chances that the robber, upon hearing
activity in the house, will hang around are even smaller (most can be
frightened away by turning a light), and lastly the chance that the
robber will be frightened away by any show of aggression (a bat, for
example) is very high.
So all in all, as far as I can tell, the chances that you would ever
need to use that gun in defense of house and home are exceedingly small.
However there is a chance (let's say for sake of argument a very small
one) that a gun in the house will lead to an accident, perhaps a fatal
one, of some kind.
I can't help but think that the former is just as unlikely to happen as
the latter is - perhaps more unlikely to happen (especially seeing the
numbers for accidental gun deaths).
> > Of course that doesn't even mention the fact that others may also -
> > your children for example.
>
> They don't know any of the combos (he's only 2 now anyway)
> and they won't know them when they are older. By that time I
> will buy a case that is fingerprint accessible. They will
> also use them and know that they are not toys.
As they should.
However you'll never know what they know until it's too late. That's
the problem with having dangerous things around: kids are infinitely
smarter than you think.
However you've said that you'd upgrade to a fingerprint reader (good)
but would you ever consider upgrading your home defense to a non-lethal
method and simply storing guns unloaded?
> > Basically if a gun is kept so that it will do me any good in an
> > emergency situation then it's a greater threat to my family than to
> > the (very unlikely) criminal.
>
> Rubbish. I am just one example and I am sure there are quite
> a few more people like me. I can think of four off the top
> of my head.
Because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it never will.
You're storing guns as you are for a very unlikely circumstance
(robbery/home invasion - both of which have declined greatly in recent
years). Whose to say that another very unlikely circumstance won't
occur?
> > > Any number of things, a rabid dog, there could be more than one.
> > > More than one person breaking in. If gun control
> advocates wouldn't
> > > have knocked the number of bullets allowed in a clip down, then I
> > > might agree with you. My 9MM only holds 12, used to hold 18. My
> > > .22 only holds 10. And you can't just go and buy 10 bullets
> > > usually. I can only buy boxes of 20 for my .22.
> >
> > An, my god, rabid dogs! Do you know how desperate that sounds.
>
> No, I have had to shot a pack (3) of coyote/dogs mix breed
> that were attempting to break into my rabbit cages when I
> raised rabbits. Any farmer will most likely have run into a
> problem like this where they will need more than one clip of
> ammo. Once again why limit people? I am yet to see you give
> a reason other than they don't need it. You need to have
> some more substance to your argument than that.
Considering that argument, why argue so adamantly for handguns? For a
farmer (or a home defender for that matter) a rifle is probably a better
choice in any case (they're generally cheaper, generally easier to
maintain, generally better able to hit a target at a given distance,
etc).
Also, in the case you make above, these weren't rabid dogs, were they?
In almost all cases the noise would be enough to scare off most animals.
Again, the matter is of degree. We, as a culture, seemed so frightened
of what might happen that we stockpile excuses for it. And that
stockpile of excuses leads to stockpile of defenses that can't possibly
be used.
> > I'm sorry - but if you're attacked, at one time, by more rabid dogs
> > than a single clip could handle - well, just kiss your ass goodbye
> > because it's judgement day my friend.
>
> Have you ever shot a dog, like the ones I mentioned above?
> They are usually moving and hitting a moving target can be
> difficult especially if you are nervous.
No, I can't say I've ever shot a dog... But then again I would guess the
vast majority of people haven't so I don't feel too left out.
I have dealt with several angry dogs before (they were in the process of
killing a cat)... But shouting and a waved coat did the trick there.
> > People breaking in... Sure. But I thought that the mere
> prescense of
> > a gun was enough to send criminals running? Still - you
> don't think
> > that 12 bullets are enough for any single incident?
>
> Depends. In some cases it might be others it might not. How
> would you feel if you had a gun to defend yourself and ran
> out of ammo for any reason and your family was killed.
If we're going to bring up incredibly unlikely scenarios how would you
feel if your child was killed by one of your guns?
> > You're right that it's definately not "most" - I've seen numbers as
> > low as 8% and as high as 20%. Although the figures are almost
> > exclusively "one to one" relationships (in other words that
> man stole
> > a gun then used it for a crime).
>
> >From your Previous email
>
> "Since there's evidence that shows many (perhaps even most)
> illegal guns on the street are stolen from private
> residences... Well, I think that you can see where I'm going..."
>
> So when someone calls your BS you back track...why try to say
> something that you know is not true. It's convienent that
> you left out that part of the message in your reply.
Sorry - I'm still actually having a conversation here - which means I
may make mistakes and other times say something correctly that I can't
find absolute proof of.
The evidence does show that "many" guns are stolen - even 5-15% (as an
example) is "many". My statement "perhaps even most" was well, a
"perhaps" - I didn't know so I didn't state it as fact. In any case, no
matter what the percentage is 341,000 thefts (many of more that one gun)
a year for the five years reported on is "many".
My stats don't specifically refute what I said, nor do they support your
case wholly. I would prefer to find a better source of information if
you have any.
> > Many of the illegal gun sellers get their guns from
> multiple sources
> > ("straw" buys - where friends or family buy,
>
> These are legal buys. How would more gun control stop this.
> If the person checks out and are ok you can't stop this from
> happening with more gun control.
Yet again, fewer guns in total, fewer illegal guns.
> Once again more gun control will not stop people from
> breaking in and stealing guns. Although I think that pawn
> shops shouldn't be able to sell guns.
I agree - although I believe that only shops with a Firearms license can
accept them. Of course a huge source of illegal weapons are corrupt
dealers (for which, I think, there should be stricter penalties).
> Also the case where somebody takes a gun from a friend or
> > family (regardless if their was permission involved) are
> not counted
> > as direct gun theft.
>
> Once again more gun control will not stop this.
But, once again, fewer guns in general... And so on.
This argument also strengthens my belief that our country biggest
problem is not "left vrs right" or "democrat vrs repulbican" but rather
"moderate vrs extreme".
There is an extreme view (two actually) in any argment that simply won't
accept any compromise. It's the "toehold syndrome" as in "let that law
in and it's a toehold that will end with us as defensless slaves!" or
"There can be no guns whatsoever and allowing any in a toehold for
disaster!"
I'm more curious now about how to curb the problem. What would you
suggest? Would you agree that laws should be enacted which (without
detail at this point) limit the need for guns used as a self-defense
mechanism? Would you support non-lethal defense technology?
Is there any case or circumstance that you can see (even fictionally)
that would indicate a need for more firearm control? Can you consider
the situation from that perspective at all?
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
