On 11/9/2010 9:51 PM, email@example.com wrote:
Make it a law and claim it's to protect the children that homes without
guns should post such a notice. In that way criminals,.. I mean children
will know it's safe to set foot on that property. :-)
Yes. Or their front door. And on their autos.
This is SUCH an appropriate quote;
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
Most "progressives" overlook/ignore the second part.
I want to know why liberals are reading Jeff Snyder. If they're not reading
him or paying attention to him, then they can't be ignoring just the second
part. They're ignoring all of it because they haven't seen it at all
Oh, I agree. The fire department people tell us they routinely are called to
fires where the battery had been removed from the smoke detector! The
residents routinely say the beeping (meaning low battery) was driving them
However, "J", the original poster to whom I responded, I deduced to be an
educated and cautious person (hey! he posts here with intelligent and
reasoned arguments), so I computed he probably had a fire extinguisher.
Thank you 'Bub! A correct deduction (on all counts) - I do have a
fire extinguisher (several). Though I should probably get another
smoke detector or two and change the batteries in the ones I have. DD
just brought home one of those fire safety reminders from school.
You cite a large number for "home invasions". Not sure if that number
is correct, it may be. I don't deny that there are a lot of
burglaries, etc. But a vast majority of those will occur when no one
is at home. And if you are at home when an "invasion" occurs and have
a loaded weapon at the ready and the invader does too, you are
probably more likely to end up dead instead of just robbed than if you
were unarmed (granted that you are also more likely to end up un-
robbed than robbed). And if you reach for your gun every time you
hear a suspicious noise, you're more likely to end up with an
accidental shooting. Sure, you decrease your chances of being robbed
(though minimally, since most robberies will occur when you're not at
home), but you are increasing your chances of being shot - either
accidentally when no criminal is involved, or during an encounter with
I'm not just some guy with his head in the sand that thinks bad things
never happen or can't happen to me, I just think that having a gun
around to protect against such things actually increases the odds of
something bad happening - on average. I'm still looking for the
numbers and I'll post if I can find them - even if they disprove me.
There seems to be a culture of fear in our country that makes people
think they really need a gun for protection. I think the actual risks
are overblown. Some have said that I (or folks like me) have an
irrational fear of guns. I wouldn't put it that way, but I definitely
try to be overly cautious when guns are involved. I would turn that
around though and say that many gun-toters have an irrational fear
that is the result of overestimating their chances of being a victim.
Having a gun in your pocket will also make you more likely to take
risks that you wouldn't otherwise take, thinking that you're protected
- and ironically make you less safe.
I doubt that this issue will be resolved, and I doubt that even if I
find the numbers I'm looking for that they would be accepted by both
sides. I'm sure that the NRA and anti-gun groups (and probably you
and I) would have completely different interpretations of the same
I'm afraid I'll have to get back to my regularly scheduled work now.
I don't want to get into an argument about gun control laws, but the
section on self-defense on this web page (h t t p://w w w .asahi-
net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#Self-defense) cites scientific studies
that back up my mathematical speculations about it being safer (on
average) to not own a gun for self defense. The studies are a bit
dated now, but the relative numbers probably haven't changed much in
the past 25 years. These are peer-reviewed articles, so you know that
they had to be able to back up their claims. And If you're counting
injuries and deaths, a medical journal is the right place to look.
Of the 13,000 articles including "NEJM+anti-gun" one can find ample
documentation for my - and my fellow enthuasists - claim I made. For
"Medical journals are not always the objective, purely scientific
publications we might think that they are. Their editors have increasingly
strayed into politics at the expense of scientific accuracy. For example,
the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has over the last few months
published a number of extremely biased and poorly done studies on gun
The author of THIS article, John Lott, surveyed the crime statistics of all
3050 counties in the U.S. over several decades. His survey, believe me, has
been "peer reviewed." While several reviewers disagreed with his
methodology, none can dispute the conclusions based on the raw data.
It should be noted that Lott started out on the other side of the controversy
but had the intelligence to change his mind when confronted with the evidence.
If only AGW loons could do the same, but there's more money in "climate
I guess since we shouldn't trust doctors to count the numbers of
people who showed up at the hospital (or morgue) with gunshot wounds,
we should trust an economist to do it. No slight on economists in
general - I love the Planet Money team at NPR. Mr Lott has published
in peer reviewed journals, but this work was not published there, it
was published in a book, reviewed chiefly by his editor. Despite his
claims of bias in the medical journals, I'd be much more likely to but
my trust there, than in his book, a source that is at best reviewed by
some good old boys at the Remington corporation.
Right or wrong (and I 'm suspecting the latter), his assertion that
allowing concealed gun carrying decreases crime rate does not
contradict the statistics on accidental gun injuries Vs. prevented gun
violence, which still means that you and your family and acquaintances
are on average safer if you do not get a gun for self defense.
Of those 13000 articles, I'm sure you can find some evidence of bias
in some of them. But bias or no, I'm much more sure you will find
accurate information and justified conclusions in the vast majority of
those peer-reviewed articles than you will in a book whose intended
audience and source of income is the gun community.
There you go. Now, since you got every kid at the range, it only
makes sense to have them join the NRA and buy their own firearms too.
Firearms training shouldn't be taken lightly.
And *no sense* teaching the kids something just once.
Without refreshers, they'll forget. Accidents waiting to happen.
Instead of not thinking about guns when it's appropriate to do so,
think about them all the time.
Think about the boogeymen out to get you too.
That's how fear works.
It's an NRA/gun dealer wet dream.
Excuse me for not buying in.
Just not fearful of guns. And I don't need one. Sorry.
If I ever think I do, well, I'll just go get one. Or five.
I'm probably still a Marksman.
And my kids never needed gun training of any kind except "Run."
My decision as a parent.
Don't need gov commies aligning with the gun/NRA industry telling me
how to parent. This is America, not Switzerland.
Home of the free.
This reminds me of that on-line gun dealer who sold to 3 different
mass murderers, including the VA Tech scum who killed 32 students.
Afterwards he visited the VA Tech campus to make a speech about how
students should be allowed to carry. And he'd give them a discount.
Capitalism at work. I love America.
He had police protection because they were afraid a parent or friend
of a dead student would shoot him. hehe.
While I'm here I'll mention a few comments by knee-jerkers.
Accused me of being a Dem and grandpappy being anti-gun.
Neither is true.
Since I'm collecting SS, that makes me a Socialist.
Just like everybody else drawing SS.
And grandpappy just plain didn't want me using his gun tool.
He liked that tool just fine. If he wanted me to kill the wild cats
he would have shown me how to use the gun tool.
But he did that himself, then quit raising chickens, then he died.
So there was no need to waste time on that.
Only a damn fool wastes time for no purpose.
Another said he wouldn't allow me to own a gun.
Yanik, I think. Wants to deny me 2nd Amendment rights.
But that's how knee-jerking commies always act, so I take no offense.
They can't help themselves.
You may not be able to "just go get one."
Depending on the jurisdiction, you may have a waiting period of five to
thirty days (e.g., California, Florida). After you get your Firearm Owner's
Identification card(s) (e.g., Massachusetts, New York). Even if there is no
waiting period in your state, you still may get hit with a five-day wait on
the NICS system.
As for getting "five," in some jurisdictions (e.g., Virginia, Maryland)
you're limited to one gun a month.
In my state (Texas), however, as in many others, there is no waiting period,
registration, or FOID card required. If someone in my state has a concealed
handgun license, there is no NICS check either - you just put your money on
the counter and take the gun (there is one small form the gun shop has to
fill out and keep).
In Illinois it's 30 days for FOID and 72 hour wait for handgun.
Last time I needed a piece - didn't trust my lover's husband - I had
one in an hour - unregistered.
Took one phone call.
There's hundreds of millions floating around.
When you're fearful, rules don't matter.
I said "may get hit." This happens when the NICS check is equivocal. The
feds get five days to research you. If the gun store doesn't hear back
within five days, the store is allowed to presume you passed.
It's a federal law allowing states to bypass the NICS *IF* their CHL law
meets certain minimum requirements. After all, a CHL check is more intensive
than a NICS check - for example a CHL check usually includes fingerprinting.
One of the things that will disqualify a CHL holder from skipping the NICS
check is the period for which the CHL is good. To skip the NICS check, the
CHL must be dated and good for no more than five years.
As an aside, I saw a federal officer get pissed because he had to undergo an
NICS check at a gun show. It seems as if his badge and identification was
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents
Subpart F_Conduct of Business
Sec. 478.102 Sales or deliveries of firearms on and after November 30, 1998.
(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section shall not apply if--
(1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license
(i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;
(ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the
transfer is to take place; and
(iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be
issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the
information available to such official does not indicate that possession of
a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or
local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information
available to such official includes the NICS;
Here's a list of which states qualify:
States with CHL that qualify:
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.