Carry one daily, never took it out. Most of the people I work with have no idea I'm packing which is the way it should be.

quote:

So say what you will now Brucie Boy, I ain't buying your line of drivel....

No sane person would.

quote:

Originally posted by Shof:
Brucie,

I might have been convicted of a weapons offence, but at least I would still be alive! There's an old saying, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six," and it's one I believe in.

Have you ever heard of intent? I was carrying a revolver with the sole intent of protecting myself from one person, Robert X. Robert X was "legally" carrying a pipe wrench with the INTENT of taking a life. So who's wrong? The one seeking to take a life with a legal "weapon," or the one using an illegal weapon to protect himself?

And the shooting crowd is right, freedom isn't free, but should two elderly people sitting in the apparent safety and comfort of their own home pay the ultimate price smply because two sociopaths cannot stay within the boundaries of law and socially acceptible behavior? How different would the outcome have been if their government allowed them to own a handgun and were able to protect their lives? Laws, regulations, governmental intentions and law enforcement couldn't protect them, Mr. Ruger or Mr. Glock might have given them a chance....

You can put your lawyer spin on any statement I make, but stand by my belief that individual protection begins not with more laws, regulations or even law officers, but with the individual. There will always be those to whom laws and regulations mean nothing or that those laws don't apply to them. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement as I've worked closely with them for over twenty years as a firefighter/emt/haz-mat tech, but when seconds count, they'll be there in minutes! And as it's been explained to me by LEO friends of mine, their primary role is to enforce the laws of society, not protect the individual...

So say what you will now Brucie Boy, I ain't buying your line of drivel....

You're being emotional and ridiculous. Personally I don't like the state of gun ownership laws either. But I am a law abiding shooter in a rule of law society, not a criminal. The reason the law has developed to be so anti gun is people who carry illegally.

Tell us, when Robert X threatened you on your property did you complain to police? Hardly. You were a criminal too. By the sound of your story you could have ran back into the house and called police. If you had done so you would have been momentarily embarassed, but by calling police the guy might have been put away before he committed the assault that eventually put him away. So whose fault in part is it the other people got assaulted? Unintended consequences, my son. You broke the law. Because of that you were unable to report a criminal and others suffered for it.

So, you think the old couple could have pulled a gun? Go Granny go, eh? Tell us about the incident? Tell us how you know they were unarmed? Most prairie homes have at least a shotgun hanging around and everyone is allowed to own one. That case sounds like it's about criminality, not gun ownership. You do not have a shred of evidence to support your theory that the home was weaponless. If the home didn't even have a shotgun it was because they didn't want one, not because they couldn't have one. That's the law, and most knowledgable guys here agree that the best in-home defence weapon is a shotgun.

Canada is friendlier for guns than the US in some ways. In America you get convicted for one felony at any age and you're weaponless for life. One screw up as a young man and get caught by an unfriendly cop and bango - no more bang bang. Mind you if yo daddy has money ...? You should appreciate that. You carry illegally; you could be deprived of guns for life any time. Not in Canada. Canada has no lifetime ban for committing any offence.

So, shof, as you said, "There will always be those to whom laws and regulations mean nothing or that those laws don't apply to them." You are one of them, and a weapons offender at that. You have nothing to say to anybody at this board. You are one of them just like the guys who killed the old folks.

Tell us, when Robert X threatened you on your property did you complain to police? Hardly. You were a criminal too.

No, I didn't for the reason that I lived in a remote part of the county as as a protective services personel, I knew what the response time would be as the area was rarely patrolled. Again, when seconds count, they'd be there in minutes. Hardly reassuring when a 6'4, 275 pound maniac is in my driveway with intent to do me bodily harm. I didn't report it, even though I was tempted as I knew that it would be my word against his and I knew that the legal system wouldn't get involved until something had occured. I knew that the particular something would have to be at minimum a serious assault, and I don't know about you Brucie Boy, but I don't really want an 18 inch pipe wrench upside my head. You do what you want....

By the sound of your story you could have ran back into the house and called police. If you had done so you would have been momentarily embarassed, but by calling police the guy might have been put away before he committed the assault that eventually put him away.

I could have, but then again, I doubt that I'd be here today to be relating my story. Yes, it's possible that there "might" have been an officer patrolling the area, but it's more likely that there wasn't an officer withing a twenty minute response. So where would that have put me? Hoping that someone would come and rescue my butt. I prefer to take a more proactive approach and take responsibility to protect myself.

So whose fault in part is it the other people got assaulted? Unintended consequences, my son. You broke the law. Because of that you were unable to report a criminal and others suffered for it.

I may have broke the law, but who is the criminal, one who breaks the law in which no one got hurt, or one who breaks the law and causes severe bodily injury to someone else. I claim responsibility for MY actions. What others do, I cannot take responsibility for.

Canada is friendlier for guns than the US in some ways.

Is it really? How many Canadian citizens can own a handgun for any reason? Isn't it true that ALL firearms are to be registered in Canada? If I was a Canadian citizen, could I own a .22 handgun for squirrel hunting? If I were a Canadian citizen, could I own my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag to hunt whitetail? Isn't it true that there are more unregistered firearms in Canada that there are registered? Wouldn't that make Canada one of the countries with the highest rate of weapon offenders in the world?

In America you get convicted for one felony at any age and you're weaponless for life. One screw up as a young man and get caught by an unfriendly cop and bango - no more bang bang. Mind you if yo daddy has money ...? You should appreciate that. You carry illegally; you could be deprived of guns for life any time. Not in Canada. Canada has no lifetime ban for committing any offence.

No, you just cannot carry a handgun or own one at all without jumping through MAJOR legal hoops! I don't have a problem with getting a weapons violation and being barred for life from owning a firearm, as long as I'm alive at the end of the event and the bad guy isn't. But then again, unless I'm forced to extraordinary measures, I'm going to follow the law. When I cite "extraordinary measures," it's such an event as when someone is attempting to do me serious bodily harm or has been heard making statements like, "I'm going to kill that SOB." You never did address who is determined to be the more serious offender, one who is simply looking to prevent harm to himself or one looking to do serious harm to another.

So, shof, as you said, "There will always be those to whom laws and regulations mean nothing or that those laws don't apply to them." You are one of them, and a weapons offender at that. You have nothing to say to anybody at this board. You are one of them just like the guys who killed the old folks.[/i]

Ahh NO. I didn't break into anyone's home and commit murder. I didn't actively seek out someone, drive to their place of residence, carrying a bludgeon to inflict serious bodily injury. When this incident occurred, I was simply dating a pleasant young woman who was legally divorced from her loser, scum sucking, drug user ex-husband. I did not taunt him, I did not go out of my way to provoke him, I didn't even know of him for the first couple of weeks of our relationship. When I became divorced from my first wife, I didn't stalk any man that she dated, I didn't make death threats, I didn't do anything but offer my best wishes that she find someone that made her happy, as a reasonable, responsible adult would do.

Again, you can put any spin on my statements that you wish. But I know who the bad guys are, I know how a reasonable and responsible adult acts. I doubt you do.

If you really are a lawyer, it wouldn't surprise me to find you're a defense attorney and a public defender at that!

Now why don't you go back to munching Cheetos and surfing porn like you usually do? I'm done with you Brucie Boy.

You've given him a lot more time than he's worth. He's a notorious troll. He disappeared off the forum for several months. We can speculate until the cows come home, but I'd wager he was either in jail or rehab. He doesn't have the balls to defend himself. If I ever get through Nunavut, I'm going to stop in and say hello.

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
You've given him a lot more time than he's worth. He's a notorious troll. He disappeared off the forum for several months. We can speculate until the cows come home, but I'd wager he was either in jail or rehab. He doesn't have the balls to defend himself. If I ever get through Nunavut, I'm going to stop in and say hello.

Yeah, you're right there jetdrver. I apologize to the other members and to the owners of the site for wasting bandwidth.

And Brucie Boy, and

quote:

Originally posted by Shof:
Tell us, when Robert X threatened you on your property did you complain to police? Hardly. You were a criminal too.

No, I didn't for the reason that I lived in a remote part of the county as as a protective services personel, I knew what the response time would be as the area was rarely patrolled. Again, when seconds count, they'd be there in minutes. Hardly reassuring when a 6'4, 275 pound maniac is in my driveway with intent to do me bodily harm. I didn't report it, even though I was tempted as I knew that it would be my word against his and I knew that the legal system wouldn't get involved until something had occured. I knew that the particular something would have to be at minimum a serious assault, and I don't know about you Brucie Boy, but I don't really want an 18 inch pipe wrench upside my head. You do what you want....

By the sound of your story you could have ran back into the house and called police. If you had done so you would have been momentarily embarassed, but by calling police the guy might have been put away before he committed the assault that eventually put him away.

I could have, but then again, I doubt that I'd be here today to be relating my story. Yes, it's possible that there "might" have been an officer patrolling the area, but it's more likely that there wasn't an officer withing a twenty minute response. So where would that have put me? Hoping that someone would come and rescue my butt. I prefer to take a more proactive approach and take responsibility to protect myself.

You are trying to evade the point. You have excuses like all offenders, but no defence. You could have retreated to the house and armed yourself. Instead you choose to break the law. You think you were less guilty than the other guy? Nonsense. You were guilty of a lesser offence perhaps, but you're just as guilty.

Who cares. You are still an offender hanging out here on a gun forum where the reading public can see how you as a shooter disrespect the law. You think you are wiser than the law. So, shof, as you said, "There will always be those to whom laws and regulations mean nothing or that those laws don't apply to them." That's you, hanging out on AR for the public to read and judge shooters by.

quote:

I may have broke the law, but who is the criminal, one who breaks the law in which no one got hurt, or one who breaks the law and causes severe bodily injury to someone else.

Both are criminals. The words "scum bag" flow from your lips mighty smoothly when you think they apply to others. What do you suppose you look like to honest law abiding shooters? You are just one more illegal pistolero on he street. The laws were made to control people exactly like you, and you think you have excuses. You are the kind of guy who thinks its ok to shoot when the cease fire flag is up at the range as long as you're satisfied that nobody will get hurt?

quote:

Canada is friendlier for guns than the US in some ways.

Is it really? How many Canadian citizens can own a handgun for any reason?

Oh gawwwwd, shof. Please do not bite at such vivid bait. Many Canadians can and do own handguns.

You are right in saying we can't hunt with handguns. That pisses me off. That is why I qualified my argument by saying "some ways". In many ways I admire the gun freedom that y'all have. Then again we don't kill thousands a year, many of them children, with handguns the way America does. If your problems come with the handgun freedom I'd rather not have it. If there is a happy medium lets hear it. So much bad gun press comes out America we are unlikely to get handgun freedom in my lifetime. Its no big deal. We don't have as dangerous a society as you either so we don't need them. We are a democracy and Canadians don't want a US style handgun problem. I wish we had more handguns but the law is the law.

quote:

In America you get convicted for one felony at any age and you're weaponless for life. One screw up as a young man and get caught by an unfriendly cop and bango - no more bang bang. Mind you if yo daddy has money ...? You should appreciate that. You carry illegally; you could be deprived of guns for life any time. Not in Canada. Canada has no lifetime ban for committing any offence.

No, you just cannot carry a handgun or own one at all without jumping through MAJOR legal hoops!

Oh? Gun control in America? Do tell?

quote:

Again, you can put any spin on my statements that you wish. But I know who the bad guys are, I know how a reasonable and responsible adult acts.

No shof, you don't. You are a bad guy. You are one of the people whose conduct brings all gun owners into disrepute and causes the law abiding public to go anti-gun. When the day comes that Americans lose their gun rights, people who behave like you will be a part of the reason more than any law abiding gun owner.

I doubt many who have been there are going to write an anecdote about it. I wouldn't either, as from the last few pages, it would likley be scurriliously picked apart by a "better than thou" anti(from Canada nonetheless, land of no crime apparently).

BTW-Love the north country, just won't venture there any longer....personal reasons you see.

Not better than anybody. Not an anti either. Just commenting on a guy who argues self righteously that he is law abiding while illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

Years ago, I was a disbursing officer. I had a .45 and a holster but it was, and is, too big for my hand. So, I used my own snub-nosed .38 when I had the safe open. I kept it in a holster inside my belt back between my buttocks.
All of a sudden, there was screaming and yelling from the back room and a mass exodus with an individual following with a hammer screaming just what he was going to do to members of a minority group. I drew, screamed his name and cocked the piece when his eyes made contact. From screaming charge to groveling in less than a second, even with pupils the wrong size !
He was to transfer in a few days so I put him on sh*t detail under the biggest, meanest Bosun in the entire Navy.
I was mighty glad that I didn't have to pull that trigger !

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:
Not better than anybody. Not an anti either. Just commenting on a guy who argues self righteously that he is law abiding while illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

In most states concealed on your property (or on the job!) is legal. AS much as I hate "t-shirt wisdom" given the choices, I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

What's your opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Collins:

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:
Not better than anybody. Not an anti either. Just commenting on a guy who argues self righteously that he is law abiding while illegally carrying a concealed weapon.

In most states concealed on your property (or on the job!) is legal. AS much as I hate "t-shirt wisdom" given the choices, I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

What's your opinion?

I didn't create an "opinion" per se. Shof stated he was carrying without a permit and used the same rationale you stated, that he'd "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6...." I rely on his own words in criticizing him. He didn't explain why he didn't get a permit either then or now. His position seems to be that it does not matter what the law says, he is not going to obey it. In other words he is one of the same group he criticizes - " ... those to whom laws and regulations mean nothing or that those laws don't apply to them." I might be in a minority here in this belief, but I believe in gun owners being law abiding. Otherwise we are no better than the people you call “gang bangers,” law breaking creeps prowling the street carrying illegal guns and being a threat to all of society. If this sounds too legalistic for Shof I can't help it.

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:
After all these posts there isn't a single story of an actual shooting. So much for "gotta have."

Um, even though I didn't pull the trigger (at least on the humans), I think I can say with some certainty that things would have gotten real ugly for me and the family had I not threatened deadly force. Those thugs were dead set on taking from us what they thought they needed. Had I not been armed, I'm 100% sure they would have proceeded, most likely over a beaten, bloodied, and possibly seriously injured or even dead me. To me, that's a "gotta have" situation, but I to each his own, eh? I see by your signature that, in my opinion, you just don't get it anyway.

I get it. You think killing somebody to stop them from taking beer is acceptable. Real "ugly" situation you had there.

As for shof, if you don't want a gangster druggie convict pissed off at you don't bang his wife. Another example of blaming the situation instead of yourself.

I don't think you get it. I didn't use a gun to deter them from taking beer. Don't be stupid or pretend to not understand. I understand concept of Devil's Advocate, but come now, don't push it so far. I used a gun to deter them from harming me and/or my family in a drug/alcohol-induced craze while trying to take beer. I value my life and that of my loved ones, and will gladly use deadly force to preserve those lives. Honestly Bruce, if you can't see that standing up for yourself and your loved ones is important, you're not worth the time I spent typing this. Suffice it to say that, following this response, I will indeed follow jetdrvr's response and ignore you.

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:

quote:

I used a gun to deter them from harming me and/or my family in a drug/alcohol-induced craze while trying to take beer. I value my life and that of my loved ones, and will gladly use deadly force to preserve those lives.

I understand the theory. I just don't believe you. You sound childish and exagerating, making up transparent excuses for fantasizing about being in a real life dangerous situation where you're the gun slinger and your family all says, "My hero!" If you ever get the opportunity to explain your theory to be judged by 12, I'll bet they'll agree with me and send you away. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe America is that dangerous.

quote:

Suffice it to say that, following this response, I will indeed follow jetdrvr's response and ignore you.

What a coward! Calls names then runs away and hides. Yup. A true Walter Mitty legend in his own mind wild west gumslinger.

quote:

Ignored post by BBBruce posted 09 June 2009 17:33

It's a shame that some people can't stay on the political forum where they apparently belong. I've never used the ignore feature before, but I've got to say it's better than chirping crickets.

Guys, BBBruce, aka JJJuicy, is a drunk. He begins his trolls and chuckles to himself in amusement when we bite. I've had him on ingnore for well over a year and don't rise to the bait.

He is a despicable coward and just not worth the trouble. He's a poor example of our Canadian members. In short, he nees to have his ass thoroughly kicked. A Louisville Slugger comes to mind. I wish I were closer.

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:

quote:

Ignored post by BBBruce posted 09 June 2009 17:33

It's a shame that some people can't stay on the political forum where they apparently belong. I've never used the ignore feature before, but I've got to say it's better than chirping crickets.

Interesting approach to forum behaviour. He floats a topic. Some guys agree with him and that's okay. Somebody makes a criticism and that guy is told he's on ignore. In other words the purpose of DR's posting is to create congratulations and what LDO calls some "attaboy" applause. However DR does not have the courage to address the criticism straight on. Why does he post here? Just to read people congratulating him, I guess?

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:
Guys, BBBruce, aka JJJuicy, is a drunk. He begins his trolls and chuckles to himself in amusement when we bite. I've had him on ingnore for well over a year and don't rise to the bait.

So THAT is why you know what I write, eh?

quote:

He is a despicable coward and just not worth the trouble. He's a poor example of our Canadian members. In short, he nees to have his ass thoroughly kicked. A Louisville Slugger comes to mind. I wish I were closer.

Can't imagine meeting man to man without a weapon, eh? Nawwwwww, you would not want to be closer in Canada. The Criminal Code permits a fair fight but weapons are not to be brought in. You're not up to my league, Depends.

Maybe a certain fellow could establish two or three nom de plums. That way he could abuse himself online and have an audience. Though it might be pornographic due to the language and content, and though it might be childish, it would not violate any statutes. He could be happy, (if he is capable of happiness) we'd be amused and it would not be like the sound of one hand clapping.
GWB

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:

quote:

Ignored post by BBBruce posted 09 June 2009 17:33

It's a shame that some people can't stay on the political forum where they apparently belong. I've never used the ignore feature before, but I've got to say it's better than chirping crickets.

Interesting approach to forum behaviour. He floats a topic. Some guys agree with him and that's okay. Somebody makes a criticism and that guy is told he's on ignore. In other words the purpose of DR's posting is to create congratulations and what LDO calls some "attaboy" applause. However DR does not have the courage to address the criticism straight on. Why does he post here? Just to read people congratulating him, I guess?

For some reason you're not on ignore on a different machine. I'll have to rectify that. First I'll respond by pointing out that I did not float the topic, I simply answered a question with a straightforward answer describing my experiences in generic, low-key terms. You chose to blow it out of proportion, to make it something grander or more heinous than it was. I seek no admiration, no "attaboy applause," no congratulatory attention from anyone here, especially you. I don't care if you agree or disagree with my choice to defend myself and my family. I don't care if you're critical, and I don't need to respond to your criticism to make myself feel more courageous. This is just the internet, a place to exchange ideas and gather information. I post here for those reasons, not to engage in worthless diatribe with someone who fails to consider alternate viewpoints and experiences from his own. Your personal attacks are childish and inconsiderate, and lead one to believe that you feed on negative attention that you can get only by attempting to make others feel lesser than you. It won't work with me. Good day.

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:
I'll respond by pointing out that I did not float the topic, I simply answered a question with a straightforward answer describing my experiences in generic, low-key terms.

Huh? "I used a gun to deter them from harming me and/or my family in a drug/alcohol-induced craze while trying to take beer. I value my life and that of my loved ones, and will gladly use deadly force to preserve those lives, " is generic and low key? I thought it was dramatic and histrionic, like somebody calling attention to himself and his guns.

quote:

You chose to blow it out of proportion, to make it something grander or more heinous than it was.

Gunplay and the kind of dramatic rhetoric you used is proportionate to some dumb drunken young guys on a beer raid?

quote:

I seek no admiration, no "attaboy applause," no congratulatory attention from anyone here.

I can tell.

quote:

I don't care if you agree or disagree with my choice to defend myself and my family. I don't care if you're critical, and I don't need to respond to your criticism to make myself feel more courageous.

No? Then why so outraged?

quote:

This is just the internet, a place to exchange ideas and gather information.

My point exactly.

quote:

I post here for those reasons, not to engage in worthless diatribe with someone who fails to consider alternate viewpoints and experiences from his own.

What do you mean, "failed to consider?" I considered it and replied back to you, just like a person would expect if they were on the Internet seeking to exchange ideas and gather information. As a fellow shooter I thought you were over the top.

quote:

It won't work with me. Good day.

You don't say? Well, g'day to U 2.

Gone quiet, eh? Came to a battle of wits and only brought half of one? Or afraid to admit he was maybe a bit out of line?

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

quote:

Originally posted by fatbutnotdead:

quote:

Originally posted by jetdrvr:

Anyone else?

I shot a rabbit with my .38.

I assume the rabbit did not return fire...

Was the rabbit even armed?

quote:

Originally posted by DesertRam:
For some reason you're not on ignore on a different machine.

Bullshit. The account is on AR, not your computer. Face up to the criticism and answer like a man.

The Shootist had a column with people saved by firearms from violence. It's estimated in the millions.

Think of a CCW as a car insurance policy, but used only when you are sure you are going to be nearly killed, or killed.

Oddly enough, as much as I dislike our CCW laws, they do provide a sober view. Use gun, go to jail, and, this includes brandishing. You may also loose your right to have firearms.

In our state, this makes CCW, legal or illegal, very reluctant to EVER bring their gun out.

One local guy had some guy taking the transmission out of his truck, not at his wish.
He caught him, pulled a Glock, and pointed it at the ground, and told the guy to get the hell out from under his truck. The scumbag called the cops, and reported him for assault. No charges filed, but, years later, it came up in his CCW discussion with the police chief.

In other words, BBBruce you see never using a carry gun as a flaw. I see it as a positive.

Firearms make folks a bit more equal.

In my area, we have marauding black youth gangs. Since they have usually only a working mother for parent, and, no father figure, they are much like the Kruger young elephants that went around killing rhinos for fun. They have figured out that with a group, they can get away with a lot of things, without being caught.

As they get bolder, they will elevate to more vicious crimes. By the way, I advocate levels of defense prior to firearms that are less 'fatal'. A firearm should be part of a self-defense plan, not the whole plan.

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
The Shootist had a column with people saved by firearms from violence. It's estimated in the millions.

Think of a CCW as a car insurance policy, but used only when you are sure you are going to be nearly killed, or killed.

Oddly enough, as much as I dislike our CCW laws, they do provide a sober view. Use gun, go to jail, and, this includes brandishing. You may also loose your right to have firearms.

In our state, this makes CCW, legal or illegal, very reluctant to EVER bring their gun out.

One local guy had some guy taking the transmission out of his truck, not at his wish.
He caught him, pulled a Glock, and pointed it at the ground, and told the guy to get the hell out from under his truck. The scumbag called the cops, and reported him for assault. No charges filed, but, years later, it came up in his CCW discussion with the police chief.

In other words, BBBruce you see never using a carry gun as a flaw. I see it as a positive.

Firearms make folks a bit more equal.

In my area, we have marauding black youth gangs. Since they have usually only a working mother for parent, and, no father figure, they are much like the Kruger young elephants that went around killing rhinos for fun. They have figured out that with a group, they can get away with a lot of things, without being caught.

As they get bolder, they will elevate to more vicious crimes. By the way, I advocate levels of defense prior to firearms that are less 'fatal'. A firearm should be part of a self-defense plan, not the whole plan.

There's nothing wrong with your logic. As a nation America appears to have a gun problem. It kills over 5,000 children a year in gun accidents. No other western nation has anywhere near the number and quality of gun stats as the US. Maybe its your society?

Revolutions happen when significant identifiable sectors of society are denied access to adequate jobs and standards of living. In the US it appears as though this has happened to non-whites in significant numbers, and as a rule not as exceptions. You could argue (as some on AR do) that it is fair for the poor, who are most often attacked, to be armed. I'll bet your founding fathers didn't believe they were setting up the aristocracy to be bumped off by the blacks and hispanics when they passed the 2nd Amendment, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
The Shootist had a column with people saved by firearms from violence. It's estimated in the millions.

Think of a CCW as a car insurance policy, but used only when you are sure you are going to be nearly killed, or killed.

Oddly enough, as much as I dislike our CCW laws, they do provide a sober view. Use gun, go to jail, and, this includes brandishing. You may also loose your right to have firearms.

In our state, this makes CCW, legal or illegal, very reluctant to EVER bring their gun out.

One local guy had some guy taking the transmission out of his truck, not at his wish.
He caught him, pulled a Glock, and pointed it at the ground, and told the guy to get the hell out from under his truck. The scumbag called the cops, and reported him for assault. No charges filed, but, years later, it came up in his CCW discussion with the police chief.

In other words, BBBruce you see never using a carry gun as a flaw. I see it as a positive.

Firearms make folks a bit more equal.

In my area, we have marauding black youth gangs. Since they have usually only a working mother for parent, and, no father figure, they are much like the Kruger young elephants that went around killing rhinos for fun. They have figured out that with a group, they can get away with a lot of things, without being caught.

As they get bolder, they will elevate to more vicious crimes. By the way, I advocate levels of defense prior to firearms that are less 'fatal'. A firearm should be part of a self-defense plan, not the whole plan.

There's nothing wrong with your logic. As a nation America appears to have a gun problem. It kills over 5,000 children a year in gun accidents. No other western nation has anywhere near the number and quality of gun stats as the US. Maybe its your society?

Revolutions happen when significant identifiable sectors of society are denied access to adequate jobs and standards of living. In the US it appears as though this has happened to non-whites in significant numbers, and as a rule not as exceptions. You could argue (as some on AR do) that it is fair for the poor, who are most often attacked, to be armed. I'll bet your founding fathers didn't believe they were setting up the aristocracy to be bumped off by the blacks and hispanics when they passed the 2nd Amendment, eh?

No, we don't have a gun problem. Considering we have 250 million people, 5k is NOTHING. Doctors kill 100 times that, no one says a word.

What gun stats? Show us facts, please. There are lies, and then statistics.

And, revolution happens when the middle class is minimized, reduced, and abused, as we are currently, making a large lower class, and, no middle or a little middle class, and, an oligarchy.

Your values are a bit off. Blacks are less then 10%, I think it's about 7% of the US population. Even though they have screwed up US law for about the last 150 years, they should be statistically inconsequential. Legends in their own minds.

If we get over white guilt, we'll be fine.

As for hispanics, in Kali, 49% of our public school kids are hispanic, and, it's growing.
Mexico sucks, no wonder they come here. They are providing cheap labor, doing jobs most others won't, and, yet they still manage a better life then many in the middle class.

As for what the founders had in mind, they thought government should be small, and limited, and, that if that was the case, people should have the task of self-protection.

Also, since they wanted no standing army, and a minimalist central federal government, they wanted the states to be able to raise, and use a militia.

Blacks were slaves at the time, and, not considered, and, Kali and the Mexican states had not yet been annexed, so Spanish folks were considered, not Mexican.

If we have a revolution, it will likely be over such things as taxes. For instance if I want to buy a computer monitor, the total tax averages out at 25%, after disposal tax, and, Kali sales tax.


As for race relations: I remember going to Berkeley High School, and, the whites were intimidated and cowed by the blacks.

I went to Pittsburg Kali, and, I can remember a few groups of Italians, and other European working class nationalities that told them to go fuck themselves.

The blacks there EARNED their prejudice, and, it still exists today.

Our major problem is rents are too high, wages too low, divorce is 50% or better, and, you have single parents that can't control their kids, because they work 3 jobs just to keep the doors open.

No parents, you end up with young thugs...

quote:

Originally posted by GS:

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
The Shootist had a column with people saved by firearms from violence. It's estimated in the millions.

Think of a CCW as a car insurance policy, but used only when you are sure you are going to be nearly killed, or killed.

Oddly enough, as much as I dislike our CCW laws, they do provide a sober view. Use gun, go to jail, and, this includes brandishing. You may also loose your right to have firearms.

In our state, this makes CCW, legal or illegal, very reluctant to EVER bring their gun out.

One local guy had some guy taking the transmission out of his truck, not at his wish.
He caught him, pulled a Glock, and pointed it at the ground, and told the guy to get the hell out from under his truck. The scumbag called the cops, and reported him for assault. No charges filed, but, years later, it came up in his CCW discussion with the police chief.

In other words, BBBruce you see never using a carry gun as a flaw. I see it as a positive.

Firearms make folks a bit more equal.

In my area, we have marauding black youth gangs. Since they have usually only a working mother for parent, and, no father figure, they are much like the Kruger young elephants that went around killing rhinos for fun. They have figured out that with a group, they can get away with a lot of things, without being caught.

As they get bolder, they will elevate to more vicious crimes. By the way, I advocate levels of defense prior to firearms that are less 'fatal'. A firearm should be part of a self-defense plan, not the whole plan.

quote:

There's nothing wrong with your logic. As a nation America appears to have a gun problem. It kills over 5,000 children a year in gun accidents. No other western nation has anywhere near the number and quality of gun stats as the US. Maybe its your society?

Revolutions happen when significant identifiable sectors of society are denied access to adequate jobs and standards of living. In the US it appears as though this has happened to non-whites in significant numbers, and as a rule not as exceptions. You could argue (as some on AR do) that it is fair for the poor, who are most often attacked, to be armed. I'll bet your founding fathers didn't believe they were setting up the aristocracy to be bumped off by the blacks and hispanics when they passed the 2nd Amendment, eh?

quote:

No, we don't have a gun problem.

quote:

Considering we have 250 million people, 5k is NOTHING. Doctors kill 100 times that, no one says a word.

Talk about irrelevant? Your population outnumbers the Brits by less than 4-1. Dead US children outnumber dead Brit kids (gun deaths) by several hundred fold.

quote:

What gun stats? Show us facts, please. There are lies, and then statistics.

And, revolution happens when the middle class is minimized, reduced, and abused, as we are currently, making a large lower class, and, no middle or a little middle class, and, an oligarchy.

Historically revolution happens when a class is deied access to the middle class. America is forcing its middle class out of existence. Combine those people with the rising working classes and you have a world of hurt arising.

quote:

Your values are a bit off. Blacks are less then 10%, I think it's about 7% of the US population. Even though they have screwed up US law for about the last 150 years, they should be statistically inconsequential. Legends in their own minds.

If we get over white guilt, we'll be fine.

As for hispanics, in Kali, 49% of our public school kids are hispanic, and, it's growing.
Mexico sucks, no wonder they come here. They are providing cheap labor, doing jobs most others won't, and, yet they still manage a better life then many in the middle class.

As for what the founders had in mind, they thought government should be small, and limited, and, that if that was the case, people should have the task of self-protection.

Also, since they wanted no standing army, and a minimalist central federal government, they wanted the states to be able to raise, and use a militia.

Blacks were slaves at the time, and, not considered, and, Kali and the Mexican states had not yet been annexed, so Spanish folks were considered, not Mexican.

If we have a revolution, it will likely be over such things as taxes. For instance if I want to buy a computer monitor, the total tax averages out at 25%, after disposal tax, and, Kali sales tax.


As for race relations: I remember going to Berkeley High School, and, the whites were intimidated and cowed by the blacks.

I went to Pittsburg Kali, and, I can remember a few groups of Italians, and other European working class nationalities that told them to go fuck themselves.

The blacks there EARNED their prejudice, and, it still exists today.

Our major problem is rents are too high, wages too low, divorce is 50% or better, and, you have single parents that can't control their kids, because they work 3 jobs just to keep the doors open.

No parents, you end up with young thugs...

Looks like we disagree.

You sound like the King of France prior to the French Revolution. When told that the peasants had no bread he replied, "Let them eat cake." Parenthetically the French Revolution was followed by the American Revolution. Which, when the economy of the south was kept artificially low by Yankee politicians led to the second American revolution, usually referred to as the US Civil War. Keep it up. We have front row seats.

At least Canada isn't allowing trying to invade us, rather successfully, I might add, as is Mexico...

I take all your statistics, and, turn them on their head. It's a miracle that 100 times those numbers aren't killed, considering the violence and conflict I see everyday in a public high school, where the teaching staff is terrified, and, afraid to be in the halls after school.

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
It's a miracle that 100 times those numbers aren't killed, considering the violence and conflict I see everyday in a public high school, where the teaching staff is terrified, and, afraid to be in the halls after school.

Wow. Is this in an inner city somewhere?

Ghettos are weird. They can move. Thanks to the scam loans offered by the banking industry, a bunch of folks moved from one of the murder capitals of the world into the area I teach in.

The result is they brought the violence with them, and, our system is NOT setup to handle it.

From the outside they look like huge, million dollar homes, and, they used to be just that.
Now, they are going into default, kids and parents are homeless, and a bunch of places are for sale. Eventually, you end up with a nice housing track on the outside, but ghetto on the inside.

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
Ghettos are weird. They can move. Thanks to the scam loans offered by the banking industry, a bunch of folks moved from one of the murder capitals of the world into the area I teach in.

The result is they brought the violence with them, and, our system is NOT setup to handle it.

From the outside they look like huge, million dollar homes, and, they used to be just that.
Now, they are going into default, kids and parents are homeless, and a bunch of places are for sale. Eventually, you end up with a nice housing track on the outside, but ghetto on the inside.

That is too bad. Sorry to hear it. What's happening to staff and schools?

You guys are being baited by a gun offender.
Why don't you get him to tell you about shooting a bear from the road and the consequences that he paid for it?

and listening to legal opinions by a dis-barred lawyer

An alcoholic, bear-poaching, disbarred lawyer... He has how many posts?

He has no life, except AR. He's pathetic and not worthy of a reasonable response.

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
Ghettos are weird. They can move. Thanks to the scam loans offered by the banking industry, a bunch of folks moved from one of the murder capitals of the world into the area I teach in.

The result is they brought the violence with them, and, our system is NOT setup to handle it.

From the outside they look like huge, million dollar homes, and, they used to be just that.
Now, they are going into default, kids and parents are homeless, and a bunch of places are for sale. Eventually, you end up with a nice housing track on the outside, but ghetto on the inside.

That is too bad. Sorry to hear it. What's happening to staff and schools?

The state of Kali makes the Federal government look good, government wise. They spend about 40 billion dollars a year on maintaining highways, or more. The budget is around 110 billion, IIRC. The schools are forced to layoff all temporary employees. No contracts offered, because currently, there is no budget in Kali. They are talking about getting rid of text books, and having kids download and read their text books on line.

As for actual teaching situations: With our current climate, parents work 3 jobs, the kids have no supervision, and, the public school teachers are scared to go to work. The good teachers either retire, or move to another district, unless they are actual graduates of the school, and area, and feel a loyalty to live through it.

quote:

Originally posted by GS:

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:

quote:

Originally posted by GS:
Ghettos are weird. They can move. Thanks to the scam loans offered by the banking industry, a bunch of folks moved from one of the murder capitals of the world into the area I teach in.

The result is they brought the violence with them, and, our system is NOT setup to handle it.

From the outside they look like huge, million dollar homes, and, they used to be just that.
Now, they are going into default, kids and parents are homeless, and a bunch of places are for sale. Eventually, you end up with a nice housing track on the outside, but ghetto on the inside.

That is too bad. Sorry to hear it. What's happening to staff and schools?

The state of Kali makes the Federal government look good, government wise. They spend about 40 billion dollars a year on maintaining highways, or more. The budget is around 110 billion, IIRC. The schools are forced to layoff all temporary employees. No contracts offered, because currently, there is no budget in Kali. They are talking about getting rid of text books, and having kids download and read their text books on line.

As for actual teaching situations: With our current climate, parents work 3 jobs, the kids have no supervision, and, the public school teachers are scared to go to work. The good teachers either retire, or move to another district, unless they are actual graduates of the school, and area, and feel a loyalty to live through it.

Holy smokes.

quote:

There's nothing wrong with your logic. As a nation America appears to have a gun problem. It kills over 5,000 children a year in gun accidents. No other western nation has anywhere near the number and quality of gun stats as the US. Maybe its your society?

Can you provide a source for your information, please? I believe that number is quite a bit off:

"Gun-related deaths in the USA

Statistics and causes

The definitive source for US injury death statistics is the Centers For Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention & Control website which provides statistics on all deaths by injury, not just gun deaths. To get the number of gun deaths for a year just set the Cause of Injury to Firearm. If you only want to know the number of child gun deaths per year then choose the custom age range and input 0 years ( <1 ) as the lowest age and 17 years as the top age. Be sure to select "No Age-Adjusting Requested" if you are only interested in a particular age group.

Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws. However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat depression and combat drugs. Click here for some sensible ways to prevent gun violence.

The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety. Click here for a free downloadable brochure that illustrates the four rules."

Google is full of references. Try http://www.neahin.org/programs.../statistics.htm#guns

quote:

Originally posted by BBBruce:
Google is full of references. Try http://www.neahin.org/programs.../statistics.htm#guns

To get perspective:
Over a half MILLION RAPES are committed in the US each year. Therefore, we should cut off ALL dicks at birth, for male children...

In other words, forget the extreme facts create bad law position.

Obscenity was removed from the above post....