Municipalities Reward S&W, but do the cops want it?
N9NWO
antisdolie <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote ...
: According to various news outlets, 50+ municipalities have decided to
: give Smith & Wesson preference for arming their local police
: departments. One know-nothing mayor (or something) said arming the
: cops with the safest guns available is the best thing to do for them
: and their families. Surely he realizes that there is a military and
: law enforcement exemption to S&W "safety" devices so they will be the
: same then as they are now.
:
: That being the case:
:
: 1. How many PD's use Smith & Wesson autoloaders?
:
: Seems to me, they either use Glock, Beretta, Sig, or HK. I've NEVER
: seen or heard of a PD that uses Smith & Wesson guns since the days
: of .38Spl and .357Mag revolvers went bye-bye.
Out of 5 departments in my county, the largest city and the county
sheriff's department use Sig P-229s, the university uses P-228s,
the State Police have Beretta 96s, DNR (conservation officers)
have Sig P-220s, with only one city using the Smith .45. And an
ATF agent told their chief that the Smith .45 was to much gun for
a local police department to have!!
Indianapolis has gone with the Glock G22/G27 for the 2000 officers
of IPD. The Marion Co sheriff also uses Glock 22s.
: 2. Will the PD's be happy when the governing bodies tell them to throw
: away their evil, unsafe Glocks, HKs, Berettas,and Sigs and gives them
: their bright, shiny, new, "safe" S&W Sigmas?
:
: This is of course assuming S&W stays in the firearms business.
What gun control is all about is money. Smith is using this as
a way to get rid of Glock and Sig Sauer.
Just like the big gun dealers want the mom & pops out of
business. The big dealers also want to be able to legally
bar blacks and other minorities from entering their stores.
N9NWO
Pagan <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote ...
: Smart move by S&W. Throwing a $10 item in the package seems like an easy
: move. I wonder why the other companies don't do it.
:
: When I was issued my Berretta, it came with a combination padlock. We
: thought it was some sick joke. They were serious. It scratches the gun,
is
: easily cut, and a determined kid can work the combination to open it given
: enough time.
:
: I went out and bought a real gun lock. It doesn't fit worth a damn, so I
: had to buy a damn gun safe ($100 for a small one). I wasn't too happy
with
: that.
:
: As far as governments using this criteria to arm their officers, I'm sure
it
: looks good to the bean/vote counters, but it looks like shit to me. Our
: firearms unit worked their asses off in a rare display of smart federal
: officers, choosing our weapon based on effectiveness, capacity,
reliability,
: and the ease of use by people ranging from tiny women to big Samoan dudes.
: Although it's not my favorite weapon and the BS getting a good lock for
it,
: I like it. I'd easily choose this gun for home defense and general carry.
:
: Pagan
The part that most have problems with is the requirement to
have guns sold to law enforcement not be resold to civilians.
And the civilian version not be able to load the higher capacity
magazines. It is a back door method to regulation. Not one
that many cops will like as it means that they will no longer be
able to keep their duty guns when they retire.
: > According to various news outlets, 50+ municipalities have decided to
: > give Smith & Wesson preference for arming their local police
: > departments. One know-nothing mayor (or something) said arming the
: > cops with the safest guns available is the best thing to do for them
: > and their families. Surely he realizes that there is a military and
: > law enforcement exemption to S&W "safety" devices so they will be the
: > same then as they are now.
: >
: > That being the case:
: >
: > 1. How many PD's use Smith & Wesson autoloaders?
: >
: > Seems to me, they either use Glock, Beretta, Sig, or HK. I've NEVER
: > seen or heard of a PD that uses Smith & Wesson guns since the days
: > of .38Spl and .357Mag revolvers went bye-bye.
: >
: > 2. Will the PD's be happy when the governing bodies tell them to throw
: > away their evil, unsafe Glocks, HKs, Berettas,and Sigs and gives them
: > their bright, shiny, new, "safe" S&W Sigmas?
: >
: > This is of course assuming S&W stays in the firearms business.
: >
: > Jim
: >
: >
: > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: > Before you buy.
:
:
Pagan
for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel safe, I
really don't want to work with them. I personally think the 12 (11 +1) we
carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about it is
reduced reloading during qualification.
People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are not
as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering buying
a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
perspective, it will hurt us when truely reasonable laws are opposed, such
as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to decide what
we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these little battles.
Pagan
"N9NWO" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote in message
news:QiQF4.21994$QJ3.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
N9NWO
: for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel safe,
I
: really don't want to work with them. I personally think the 12 (11 +1) we
: carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
: except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about it
is
: reduced reloading during qualification.
:
: People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are not
: as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
: tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering
buying
: a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
If one buys a used LEO gun, and it is used in a self defense incident,
the big argue would be that it is the same gun as selected by law
enforcement.
Some prosecutors try to show malice by using the name of a gun. Such
as the Colt Python. And one can rework an old LEO gun, if you can buy
them cheap enough.
: I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
: perspective, it will hurt us when truely reasonable laws are opposed, such
: as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to decide
what
: we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these little battles.
None of us are fighting the child safety locks or ballistic fingerprinting.
The safety locks are useless if not used (I keep all my guns in a safe
when not on my person, not even most cops do that!). I do think that
we in the military (at least NCOs and officers) should have the same
exemptions to large capacity magazines as was given to law enforcement.
: > : Smart move by S&W. Throwing a $10 item in the package seems like an
: easy move. I wonder why the other companies don't do it.
: > :
: > : When I was issued my Berretta, it came with a combination padlock. We
: > : thought it was some sick joke. They were serious. It scratches the
: gun, is easily cut, and a determined kid can work the combination to
open it
: given enough time.
: > :
: > : I went out and bought a real gun lock. It doesn't fit worth a damn,
so
: I
: > : had to buy a damn gun safe ($100 for a small one). I wasn't too happy
: > with that.
: > :
: > : As far as governments using this criteria to arm their officers, I'm
: sure it looks good to the bean/vote counters, but it looks like shit to
me. Our
: > : firearms unit worked their asses off in a rare display of smart
federal
: > : officers, choosing our weapon based on effectiveness, capacity,
: > reliability, and the ease of use by people ranging from tiny women to
big Samoan
: dudes. Although it's not my favorite weapon and the BS getting a good
lock for
: > it, I like it. I'd easily choose this gun for home defense and general
: carry.
: >
: > The part that most have problems with is the requirement to
ja...@mindspring.com
<pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are not
> as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering buying
> a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for the
future as far as our rights are concerned?
What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as the
rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc. to
have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
Jaxi
N9NWO
not
: > as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
: > tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering
buying
: > a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
:
: Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
: police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for the
: future as far as our rights are concerned?
:
: What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as the
: rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc. to
: have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
If law enforcement is a civilian force then they need to have
the same restrictions that every not LEO civilian faces. If
law enforcement is a paramilitary force then the military
(the National Guard) should have control of police. Either
way military personnel have a greater claim to exemptions
than would the police.
Ronald Shin
Pagan wrote:
> Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity mags
> for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel safe, I
> really don't want to work with them.
I must strongly disagree here. During the LA riots of 1992, some of my
relatives who owned stores there found those 17 round magazines *very* useful
when trying to fend off a dozen looters/arsonists at a time.
> I personally think the 12 (11 +1) we
> carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
> except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about it is
> reduced reloading during qualification.
Sometimes, when a mass of armed attackers are about to hurl Molotov cocktails at
a store that you have worked so long and hard to get up and running, are intent
on committing their mis-deeds, you're darn right, that reduced reloading helps.
> People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are not
> as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> tolerance for abuse.
Depends on the brand. I have seen Glocks go through a tremendous amount of
abuse, and all they needed were the polymer sights replaced (but hey! Those
Trijicons would certainly be a good replacement). That, and perhaps a new
coating of black oxide.
> I'd think long and hard before even considering buying
> a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
They usually come factory refurbished (if you are talking about most
semiautomatic police trade-ins).
Keep 'em in the x-ring!
antisdolie
"Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
> mags for a pistol used for defense.
I don't trust someone that needs more than a 65hp engine for his car.
I don't trust someone that needs more than a 4Mhz 8086 computer.
I don't trust someone that needs more than 3 pairs of shorts.
> I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
> perspective, it will hurt us when truely reasonable laws are opposed,
Are you saying we should accept unreasonable laws so we can oppose
"reasonable" ones? I would think picking the arbitrary number of 10 as
the number of acceptable rounds is unreasonable. What happens when 10
is too much, and they pick 5?
> such as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to
> decide what we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these
> little battles.
You mean let them pass all the feel-good-do-nothing-cost-a lot
legislation they like, without comment?
Peter White
N9NWO <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote in message
> : > People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are
> not
> : > as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> buying
> : > a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
> : Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
> : police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for
the
> : future as far as our rights are concerned?
> :
> : What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as the
> : rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc.
to
> : have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
> :
>
> If law enforcement is a civilian force then they need to have
> the same restrictions that every not LEO civilian faces. If
> law enforcement is a paramilitary force then the military
> (the National Guard) should have control of police. Either
> way military personnel have a greater claim to exemptions
> than would the police.
>
to kill people and break things, regardless of how the current
administration sees things. Law enforcement's function is to apprehend
citizens accused of a crime and bring them to trial before their peers.
Therefore, in regards to individual weapons, citizens should have the same
status as police.
Military personnel do not have greater claim to exemption, if you are
referring to their private life. If you refer to government-owned,
maintained and stored weapons, that's different. The nation, however, has
not endorsed the military deploying with privately owned weapons for
decades.
PW
N9NWO
The Navy and Marines still have full arrest powers over civilians.
The Army and Air Force are only slightly restricted. Plus the
Army has huge elements that deal only with civilians. Military
Police, per Army doctrine, are the force that deals directly with
the civilian population. They also control all area conquered.
Civil Affairs units, a subset of military intelligence and are part
of Special Operation, deal with all levels of civilians from those
on the battlefield to Host Nation support. And there is Pyschological
Operations, another subset of military intelligence.
Given the new face of war, urban warfare, the military, especially
the Army, is training heavily for operations that deal with civilian
populations to include militia style operations (ie Kosovo).
: Military personnel do not have greater claim to exemption, if you are
: referring to their private life. If you refer to government-owned,
: maintained and stored weapons, that's different. The nation, however, has
: not endorsed the military deploying with privately owned weapons for
: decades.
Law enforcement claims an exemption for law enforcement for
private weapons. Since the military is part of the militia, it has
a greater claim to private weapons than would LEOs. Yet the
LEOs get the exemption.
N9NWO
It effects you guys even more than it does us. They will come
for you first.
: >
: >
:
:
Peter White
N9NWO <21...@GTE.net> wrote in message
news:%zPG4.46792$QJ3.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> : > : > People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns
> are
> : > not as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have
> the
> : > : > tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even
> considering
> : > buying a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued
> gun.
> : > :
the
> : > : police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends
for
> : the future as far as our rights are concerned?
> : > :
> : > : What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as
the
> : > : rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family,
etc.
> : to have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
> : > :
> : >
> : > If law enforcement is a civilian force then they need to have
> : > the same restrictions that every not LEO civilian faces. If
> : > law enforcement is a paramilitary force then the military
> : > (the National Guard) should have control of police. Either
> : > way military personnel have a greater claim to exemptions
> : > than would the police.
> : >
intended
> : to kill people and break things, regardless of how the current
> : administration sees things. Law enforcement's function is to apprehend
> : citizens accused of a crime and bring them to trial before their peers.
> : Therefore, in regards to individual weapons, citizens should have the
same
> : status as police.
>
> The Navy and Marines still have full arrest powers over civilians.
> The Army and Air Force are only slightly restricted. Plus the
> Army has huge elements that deal only with civilians. Military
> Police, per Army doctrine, are the force that deals directly with
> the civilian population. They also control all area conquered.
> Civil Affairs units, a subset of military intelligence and are part
> of Special Operation, deal with all levels of civilians from those
> on the battlefield to Host Nation support. And there is Pyschological
> Operations, another subset of military intelligence.
>
certain actions, unless certain conditions are met. Why the Dept of the Navy
was neglected, I have no idea. Regardless, they do not have arrest power
over Joe Sixpack, cruising along at Main/Elm. Check the statutes of the
various states. "Full arrest" means the ability to arrest for either a
felony or misdemeanor, not committed in one's presence, and that power just
doesn't reside in the Dept of Navy. And while the Army has those people,
they are support troops, not the focus of the Army's mission.
> Given the new face of war, urban warfare, the military, especially
> the Army, is training heavily for operations that deal with civilian
> populations to include militia style operations (ie Kosovo).
>
Yes, they are. If they should is another matter. The military (personal
belief follows) is there to protect vital US interests and keep potential
agressors too scared to even try anything. This is not accomplished by
nickle and diming them to death, to the point where whole divisions are no
longer combat ready.
u refer to government-owned,
> : maintained and stored weapons, that's different. The nation, however,
has
> : not endorsed the military deploying with privately owned weapons for
> : decades.
>
> Law enforcement claims an exemption for law enforcement for
> private weapons. Since the military is part of the militia, it has
> a greater claim to private weapons than would LEOs. Yet the
> LEOs get the exemption.
>
Couple of points. First, there is no exemption for private weapons. Under
ATF rules, these weapons and magazines must be surrendered to the department
when the officer leaves employment. Second, I believe that any such claim
creates an Us-vs-them situation. If I, the LEO, need 17 rounds to react to a
threat in defense of innocent life, then Joe Sixpack has every claim to the
same equipment. Third, all M9s and M16s have standard magazines, so there is
no problem with the military's issue weapon. Last, the military member can
get these items on letterhead. (Yeah, right, go find the commander who can
sign.)
PW
Pagan
purchase. I'd like to kick them in the culo.
I've never figured out why, in the military, they would forbid soldiers to
keep a .45 pistol, but then order them to load that 155mm shell in that
howitzer and fire it. I guess it's the same logic the airlines use when
they forbid passengers from bringing a leatherman tool on board, but then
hand out steak knives.
Pagan
"N9NWO" <21...@GTE.net> wrote in message
news:eCpG4.44735$QJ3.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> : Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
mags
> : for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel
safe,
> I
> : really don't want to work with them. I personally think the 12 (11 +1)
we
> : carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
> : except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about
it
> is
> : reduced reloading during qualification.
> :
> : People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are
not
> : as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> : tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering
> buying
> : a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
>
> If one buys a used LEO gun, and it is used in a self defense incident,
> the big argue would be that it is the same gun as selected by law
> enforcement.
> Some prosecutors try to show malice by using the name of a gun. Such
> as the Colt Python. And one can rework an old LEO gun, if you can buy
> them cheap enough.
>
> : I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
> : perspective, it will hurt us when truely reasonable laws are opposed,
such
> : as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to decide
> what
> : we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these little battles.
>
N9NWO
: > : >
The Marine MPs are fully trained to do law enforcement. As is NIS.
And missions are changing. It has been suggested to allow the National
Guard be trained as MPs then use the as regular law enforcement.
That way they are prepared for their wartime mission which would
be dealing with civilians.
: > Given the new face of war, urban warfare, the military, especially
: > the Army, is training heavily for operations that deal with civilian
: > populations to include militia style operations (ie Kosovo).
: >
: Yes, they are. If they should is another matter. The military (personal
: belief follows) is there to protect vital US interests and keep potential
: agressors too scared to even try anything. This is not accomplished by
: nickle and diming them to death, to the point where whole divisions are no
: longer combat ready.
The Army's mission used to include law enforcment. Until they
abused their powers. Much like the FBI has done recently.
: u refer to government-owned,
: > : maintained and stored weapons, that's different. The nation, however,
: has not endorsed the military deploying with privately owned weapons for
: > : decades.
: >
: > Law enforcement claims an exemption for law enforcement for
: > private weapons. Since the military is part of the militia, it has
: > a greater claim to private weapons than would LEOs. Yet the
: > LEOs get the exemption.
: >
: Couple of points. First, there is no exemption for private weapons. Under
: ATF rules, these weapons and magazines must be surrendered to the
department
: when the officer leaves employment. Second, I believe that any such claim
: creates an Us-vs-them situation. If I, the LEO, need 17 rounds to react to
a
: threat in defense of innocent life, then Joe Sixpack has every claim to
the
: same equipment. Third, all M9s and M16s have standard magazines, so there
is
: no problem with the military's issue weapon. Last, the military member can
: get these items on letterhead. (Yeah, right, go find the commander who can
: sign.)
What I have seen is that LEOs are not being asked to return any
weapons or magazines bought on LEO exemption (letterhead). And
most officers are allowed to buy their duty weapons (LEO only)
when they retire.
I do agree with you that LEOs should be held under the same
restrictions as the private citizen.
Pagan
news:jaxi-05040...@nwf-nj24-31.ix.netcom.com...
<snip>
> Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
> police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for the
> future as far as our rights are concerned?
There's a lot of answer for a question like that. First, yes, I'm a cop.
Police forces in this era need a certain amount of military training and
abilities, but they also need to resist the urge to use them unless there
are no alternatives. There's a lot of temptation to go out and play Rambo.
> What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as the
> rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc. to
> have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
My weapon was issued with a trigger lock, and even though is was pretty
crappy, it was effective. If you practice, one of the locks sold on the
open market can be opened in less than a second or two. If you take basic
security precautions (good solid doors, locked windows, outside lighting)
you generally don't have to worry about being able to do a quick draw inside
your house. Also, a few NRA stickers placed around doesn't hurt either.
Pagan
> Jaxi
Pagan
"Ronald Shin" <sh...@mail.chem.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:38EB4353...@mail.chem.sc.edu...
>
>
> Pagan wrote:
>
> > Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
mags
> > for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel
safe, I
> > really don't want to work with them.
>
> relatives who owned stores there found those 17 round magazines *very*
useful
> when trying to fend off a dozen looters/arsonists at a time.
Good point. But the need for those are few and far between. A 10 round mag
would have almost the same effect. Of course, this goes the other way.
Laws forbidding 17 round mags are stupid for the same reason.
> > I personally think the 12 (11 +1) we
> > carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
> > except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about
it is
> > reduced reloading during qualification.
>
> Sometimes, when a mass of armed attackers are about to hurl Molotov
cocktails at
> a store that you have worked so long and hard to get up and running, are
intent
> on committing their mis-deeds, you're darn right, that reduced reloading
helps.
Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
destroying only property.
>
> > People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are
not
> > as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> > tolerance for abuse.
>
> Depends on the brand. I have seen Glocks go through a tremendous amount
of
> abuse, and all they needed were the polymer sights replaced (but hey!
Those
> Trijicons would certainly be a good replacement). That, and perhaps a new
> coating of black oxide.
I'm assuming most agencies don't issue Glocks. Our Berrettas last about 10k
rounds, and the only thing that's good after that are the grips. Sounds
like a lot, but not if you consider qualifications and practice.
> > I'd think long and hard before even considering buying
> > a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
>
Pagan
"antisdolie" <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8cg65q$kgp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sek8qmp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> > Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
> > mags for a pistol used for defense.
>
> I don't trust someone that needs more than a 4Mhz 8086 computer.
> I don't trust someone that needs more than 3 pairs of shorts.
The subject here is weapons.
> > I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
> > perspective, it will hurt us when truely reasonable laws are opposed,
>
> Are you saying we should accept unreasonable laws so we can oppose
> "reasonable" ones? I would think picking the arbitrary number of 10 as
> the number of acceptable rounds is unreasonable. What happens when 10
> is too much, and they pick 5?
No, I think the 10 round limit is foolish. I'm speaking from a law
enforcement duty weapon perspective.
> > such as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to
> > decide what we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these
> > little battles.
>
> You mean let them pass all the feel-good-do-nothing-cost-a lot
> legislation they like, without comment?
Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my not-so-humble
opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect us,
doesn't make sense.
Ronald Shin
Pagan wrote:
>
> Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> destroying only property.
>
If the looters/arsonists were only out to destroy property, I would agree.
However, many a shop owner will tell you, that during those riots, the
looters/arsonists had no regard as to whether or not someone was actually inside
those buildings when they hurled their firebombs into them.
>
> I'm assuming most agencies don't issue Glocks.
Many agencies do. Miami PD and NYPD are just two such examples, along with the
FBI, and numerous others.
When the Miami PD was testing the Glock 17's durability, they hurled it, with a
primered casing, against a steel reinforced concrete wall numerous times using
one of the clay chuckers you see on the skeet range. No discharge, and the
weapon had proceeded to go on to the next round of testing, which included a 20K
round torture test using some pretty hot 9 mm rounds.
> Our Berrettas last about 10k
> rounds, and the only thing that's good after that are the grips. Sounds
> like a lot, but not if you consider qualifications and practice.
Strange. When the army adopted the Beretta M92F as the standard sidearm, they
had run their tests through some pretty torturous trials, which included many
rounds of NATO spec 9 mm ammo (124 grain FMJ, appx 1300 fps). The only problem
with the M92F was when some military branch tried to use a steady diet of
submachine gun ammo, much hotter than any +P+ round you will find, in the M92F,
which caused many a slide to fly off, and put permanent indentations on several
unlucky individuals' foreheads. The M92FS was reinforced, correcting this
problem.
I would think that the Beretta M92 FS (if that is what you were issued) would
hold up better than 10000 rounds.
Peter White
N9NWO <21...@GTE.net> wrote in message
> : > : > :
> : > : >
> And missions are changing. It has been suggested to allow the National
> Guard be trained as MPs then use the as regular law enforcement.
> That way they are prepared for their wartime mission which would
> be dealing with civilians.
>
out law enforcement to allow them to concentrate scarce training time on
battlefield tasks such as airfield security and rear area ops. Which way is
the trend going?
ARNG has MP units of course, and minimal training in crowd control. Still,
the midsets are far apart. I don't want soldiers enforcing the law in
country.
> : > Given the new face of war, urban warfare, the military, especially
> : > the Army, is training heavily for operations that deal with civilian
> : > populations to include militia style operations (ie Kosovo).
> : >
> : Yes, they are. If they should is another matter. The military (personal
> : belief follows) is there to protect vital US interests and keep
potential
> : agressors too scared to even try anything. This is not accomplished by
> : nickle and diming them to death, to the point where whole divisions are
no
> : longer combat ready.
>
> The Army's mission used to include law enforcment. Until they
> abused their powers. Much like the FBI has done recently.
>
Yes they (USA) did. Look at Dougie McArthur and his actions against the
bonus marchers. But most of the law enforcement was post-Civil War and
frontier times when there was no reliable civilian infrastructure.
> : u refer to government-owned,
> : > : maintained and stored weapons, that's different. The nation,
however,
> : has not endorsed the military deploying with privately owned weapons for
> : > : decades.
> : >
> : > Law enforcement claims an exemption for law enforcement for
> : > private weapons. Since the military is part of the militia, it has
> : > a greater claim to private weapons than would LEOs. Yet the
> : > LEOs get the exemption.
> : >
> : Couple of points. First, there is no exemption for private weapons.
Under
> : ATF rules, these weapons and magazines must be surrendered to the
> department
> : when the officer leaves employment. Second, I believe that any such
claim
> : creates an Us-vs-them situation. If I, the LEO, need 17 rounds to react
to a
> : threat in defense of innocent life, then Joe Sixpack has every claim to
> the same equipment. Third, all M9s and M16s have standard magazines, so
there is no problem with the military's issue weapon. Last, the military
member can
> : get these items on letterhead. (Yeah, right, go find the commander who
can
> : sign.)
>
> What I have seen is that LEOs are not being asked to return any
> weapons or magazines bought on LEO exemption (letterhead). And
> most officers are allowed to buy their duty weapons (LEO only)
> when they retire.
>
Ouch. Magazines are dated and stamped with restrictions. I see a court case
in someone's future. The guns, BTW are nothing special, except for the buy
in bulk price.
Peter White
> Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
> police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for the
> future as far as our rights are concerned?
>
> rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc. to
> have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
>
1. Yes, I am.
2. This is a bad thing. One of the thing that stirs up many on this group is
when police act like an army of occupation. There is a huge difference
between the mindset needed for a cop and that for a soldier. OTOH, I see the
pendulum swinging back the other way. Though not perfect, "Community
Policing", or whatever the current buzzword is, represents the first,
tentative steps in that direction.
3. Americans have an amazing tendency to trust technology over training. In
this case, we're afraid to properly train our kids, so we look to a
technological (word?) fix: trigger locks. All pushed by people who don't
want to understand what a gun is for...
4. No. No. and No again. There isn't time for all that clap-trap when the
pitbull is chewing on little Suzie, or when Robert the Rapist is in the
house.
One man's opinion.
PW
N9NWO
firearm
: purchase. I'd like to kick them in the culo.
The NRA has not opposed safety locks. They indorsed that
provision. It is the Clinton administration that killed the bill.
All over a waiting period for gun shows (it did not matter, the President
was not going to allow this bill to be signed). The NRA reinforced
that when LaPierre critized the president for wanting more violence
in order to advance his position.
: I've never figured out why, in the military, they would forbid soldiers to
: keep a .45 pistol, but then order them to load that 155mm shell in that
: howitzer and fire it. I guess it's the same logic the airlines use when
: they forbid passengers from bringing a leatherman tool on board, but then
: hand out steak knives.
It depends who you are. Some us are issued M9 plus our M16A2.
(.45 is out)
BTW, most airlines have allowed me to carry my leatherman tool.
In fact any knife under 3" (blade).
: Pagan
: > : Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
: mags for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel
: safe, I really don't want to work with them. I personally think the 12
(11 +1)
: we carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That
is,
: > : except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about
: it
: > is
: > : reduced reloading during qualification.
: > :
: > : People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are
: not
: > : as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
: > : tolerance for abuse. I'd think long and hard before even considering
: > buying
: > : a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
: >
: > If one buys a used LEO gun, and it is used in a self defense incident,
: > the big argue would be that it is the same gun as selected by law
: > enforcement.
: > Some prosecutors try to show malice by using the name of a gun. Such
: > as the Colt Python. And one can rework an old LEO gun, if you can buy
: > them cheap enough.
: >
: > : I'm not against hi cap mags, but if us pro gun folks don't keep our
: > : perspective, it will hurt us when truly reasonable laws are opposed,
: such
: > : as child safety locks and ballistic fingerprinting. We need to decide
: > what
: > : we want and make a stand instead of fighting all these little battles.
: >
: > None of us are fighting the child safety locks or ballistic
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
N9NWO
The AF has split the SPs. One group does law enforcement, the
other does base security. With Army, the MPs are no longer acting
as police for the posts. Rear Area Ops is only one mission. The
other is policing of civilians in the rear area (from the FEBA backwards).
Rear Area Ops means that the MPs are the infantry to fight off any
enemy attacks behind the lines.
: ARNG has MP units of course, and minimal training in crowd control. Still,
: the midsets are far apart. I don't want soldiers enforcing the law in
: country.
There has been the suggestion that the Guard be converted
totally to MPs. Easier to train in peace time as they can do
the same mission with US civilians. It would be great for recruiting
as well.
Many of the south states now have Logistical divisions instead of
Infantry divisions. This means large numbers of MPs, logistical
units (transportation, supply, maintenance) plus large numbers of
military intelligence troops. Everyone is looking for new missions.
: > : > Given the new face of war, urban warfare, the military, especially
: > : > the Army, is training heavily for operations that deal with civilian
: > : > populations to include militia style operations (ie Kosovo).
: > : >
: > : Yes, they are. If they should is another matter. The military
(personal
: > : belief follows) is there to protect vital US interests and keep
: potential agressors too scared to even try anything. This is not
accomplished by
: > : nickle and diming them to death, to the point where whole divisions
are
: no longer combat ready.
: >
: > The Army's mission used to include law enforcment. Until they
: > abused their powers. Much like the FBI has done recently.
: >
: Yes they (USA) did. Look at Dougie McArthur and his actions against the
: bonus marchers. But most of the law enforcement was post-Civil War and
: frontier times when there was no reliable civilian infrastructure.
Until the late 1870s, there wasn't a federal police force except
for the Army. Even now the powers of the FBI and the Marshalls
is based on the authority of an Army officer.
: > : u refer to government-owned,
: > : > : maintained and stored weapons, that's different.
:The nation, however, has not endorsed the military deploying
:with privately owned weapons for decades.
Point here. Since Vietnam. We seemed to stop trusting
our soldiers then. And our civilians.
Thru Vietnam, soldiers and Marines kept their weapons
by their bunks.
The Smith and Wesson deal has a cause in it that the manufacturers
will not sell a high capacity weapon to a civilian. That means there will
be two sets of weapons, one for law enforcement (large capacity mags)
and one for civilians (under 10 rounds). That is going to make guns for
law enforcement very expensive.
: > I do agree with you that LEOs should be held under the same
: >
:
:
:
N9NWO
: > Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
: > police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for
the
: > future as far as our rights are concerned?
: There's a lot of answer for a question like that. First, yes, I'm a cop.
: Police forces in this era need a certain amount of military training and
: abilities, but they also need to resist the urge to use them unless there
: are no alternatives. There's a lot of temptation to go out and play
Rambo.
What most people are seeing is a lot of young cops. Most departments
are seeing a huge turnover with cops staying less than 5 years (about
half an academy class is gone in 5 years). It is becoming normal for
our society to see people not only change jobs within their career field
often but also see people change their careers several times within their
lifetime.
Cops with less than 5 years of experience tend to be a bit more agressive.
It is a young man's thing, trying to prove yourself. Not as many old and
gray heads on the forces these days.
: > What about supplying cops with the same guns with trigger locks as the
: > rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc.
to
: > have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
:
: My weapon was issued with a trigger lock, and even though is was pretty
: crappy, it was effective. If you practice, one of the locks sold on the
: open market can be opened in less than a second or two. If you take basic
: security precautions (good solid doors, locked windows, outside lighting)
: you generally don't have to worry about being able to do a quick draw
inside
: your house. Also, a few NRA stickers placed around doesn't hurt either.
Too many cops I know just take off the gun belt, loaded gun and
all, and place it on the shelf in the front closet. One friend said his
wife, a cop, was lucky if she just dropped the belt on the floor when
she got home.
I follow military procedures. If the gun is not on my person, it is in
my gun safe. Period. I have total control of the weapon that way.
Gunner
>
>Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
>destroying only property.
>
So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
Gunner
--------------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Rosies Page http://rosie.acmecity.com/flower/277/
homepage http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/gunner
Damian Harvey
Gunner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >destroying only property.
> >
> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>
> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
landcruiser?
ja...@mindspring.com
<pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my not-so-humble
> opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect us,
> doesn't make sense.
On the surface it doesn't. However 'Handgun Control, Inc.' has been known
state somewhere that they are working to chip away the 2nd amendment until
we no longer have any rights to arms. If that's not a Constitution
destroyer then I don't know what is.
Jaxi
Gunner
wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
>> >destroying only property.
>> >
>> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
>> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
>> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>>
>> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
>
>What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
>that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
>thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
>landcruiser?
Come on Damian, you can do a better troll than that. <G> Nice try though.
As you may be aware of, Arson, in the States Can be a capital offense, and the
difference between burning down a mans home and castle, is far different than
keying his vehicle.
I once caught a fella keying my truck. When the ruckus was over, he was bound
to be in pain for a LOT longer than if Id shot him to death. Not to mention
giving him a little something to remember me by when he shaved..... using his
keys, of course.
Nick Hull
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >destroying only property.
> >
> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>
You don't have to shoot the arsonist, just shoot the cocktail in his hand
with a high powered rifle.
--
Committees of Correspondence Web page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
- free men own guns, slaves don't
Damian Harvey
Gunner wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:55:19 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >> >destroying only property.
> >> >
> >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
> >>
> >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
> >
> >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
> >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
> >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
> >landcruiser?
>
> Come on Damian, you can do a better troll than that. <G> Nice try though.
> As you may be aware of, Arson, in the States Can be a capital offense, and the
> difference between burning down a mans home and castle, is far different than
> keying his vehicle.
>
> I once caught a fella keying my truck. When the ruckus was over, he was bound
> to be in pain for a LOT longer than if Id shot him to death. Not to mention
> giving him a little something to remember me by when he shaved..... using his
> keys, of course.
>
> Gunner
Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
damaging property"
Of course there are two extremes,
A) Pulling out you geraniums.
Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
Suggested punishments,
A) A good slapping.
Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
do it.
But as with many things in life most circumstances lie in between those two points.
The trick is modifying the punishment accordingly
Bill & Pat Velek
> You don't have to shoot the arsonist, just shoot the cocktail in his hand
> with a high powered rifle ...
... so that you can then have something to do for the rest of your life
-- like guarding your house 24/7 to be sure he doesn't come back?
In my instance it would be: "Oops, Officer, I was just trying to shoot
the bottle out of his hand, but I'm not that good of a shoot and I
sure didn't mean to nail him right between the eyes!"
Bill Velek
Bill & Pat Velek
snip
First of all, Damian, if you were going to paraphrase everything that I
just snipped, why didn't you take the next logical and appropriate step
and snip the unnecessary lines that you were paraphrasing? I guess you
just forgot; I sometimes do that, too. ;-)
> Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
> Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
> I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
> damaging property"
> Of course there are two extremes,
> A) Pulling out you geraniums.
> Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
> Suggested punishments,
> A) A good slapping.
> Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
> do it.
Well, as Dirty Harry once said: "A man's just got to know his
limitations."
Bill Velek
Gunner
wrote:
>
>Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
>Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
>I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
>damaging property"
>Of course there are two extremes,
>A) Pulling out you geraniums.
>Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
>Suggested punishments,
>A) A good slapping.
>Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
>do it.
>But as with many things in life most circumstances lie in between those two points.
>The trick is modifying the punishment accordingly
>
Duh!!
But he did make an absolute statement, with NO qualifiers.... I gave a
qualifier....<G>
Peter White
Bill & Pat Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> wrote in message
news:38EC8B76...@cyberback.com...
JUDGE SHOOTS, KILLS PROTESTING TEEN
Arkansas-A local judge today shot and killed 19 year old Tommy Nobrain. The
boy, who was protesting Judge Bill Velek's recent decision supporting the
right of Dyson Foods to slaughter chickens, had gone to the judge's home. He
was carrying what friends described as a bottle of chicken blood to
symbolize the ongoing slaughter. The judge fired a single shot which struck
Tommy in the head, killing him instantly.
Police are investigating the incident and had no comment. A source close to
the investigation quoted Judge Velek as saying, "Oops."
Seriously, though, anyone preparing for the possibility that he might
someday take a life better think through the consequences. Would *I* shoot
to protect my insured pile of wood and masonary, and my irreplaceable
collection of Benny Goodman singles? No. Would I shoot to keep my innocent
child from being fire-bombed in his bed? You can bet the farm on it.
First, survive the encounter. Then, be prepared for the criminal case. Then
comes the civil trial. Did I mention the court of public opinion?
PW
Bill Vojak
: > You mean let them pass all the feel-good-do-nothing-cost-a lot
: > legislation they like, without comment?
: Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my not-so-humble
: opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect us,
: doesn't make sense.
Till some in-experienced person tries putting a "safety lock" on a
loaded semiauto with a 4 lb trigger pull, and discharges the
gun into their child/spouse/foot/dog/tv. . .
Bill Vojak
Peter White
Pagan <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote in message
news:senllbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
not-so-humble
> opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect
us,
> doesn't make sense.
>
"reasonable man's" standard of action. That means that failure to do so, all
the time, is reckless. Does this not show depraved indifference to life,
ladies and gentlemen? You must, therefore, find...
PW
Frank J. Zember
<harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
>> >destroying only property.
>> >
>> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
>> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
>> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>>
>> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
>
>What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
>that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
>thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
>landcruiser?
No, that does not justify shooting them. It does, however, justify a
good, old-fashioned ass kicking.
Frank J. Zember
wrote:
>In article <38ece63...@news.cyberg8t.com>, gun...@cyberg8t.com wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
>> >destroying only property.
>> >
>> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
>> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
>> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>>
>You don't have to shoot the arsonist, just shoot the cocktail in his hand
>with a high powered rifle.
Or even a "low-powered" one.
Pagan
bed. When I have guests with children, I wear my weapon in a fanny pack.
I'd never leave this thing around children or strangers.
You're right about younger cops sometimes being more aggressive. On my
shift there are a few 15+ year veterans who I've learned from, and I've
found you can usually get more done by not trying to prove your a "Big, Bad
Cop". Many of my younger peers think I'm a wuss. Oh well.
Pagan
"N9NWO" <21...@GTE.net> wrote in message
news:8eRG4.46871$QJ3.4...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Pagan
and he'd be doing me a favor. I hate this condo.
That's my personal thinking, however. I'd go a lot farther to protect the
public's property, and I'd expect most people to shoot.
Pagan
"Gunner" <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
news:38ece63...@news.cyberg8t.com...
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >destroying only property.
> >
> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands,
and
> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>
> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
>
> Gunner
Pagan
it, it keeps going, and you have no idea where it will end up.
If you have to shoot, you aim center mass, period. No shooting the legs,
hands, something he's carrying. We are forbidden to fire warning shots.
That crap is strictly for movies.
Pagan
"Nick Hull" <nh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nhull-06040...@user-37kafpn.dialup.mindspring.com...
> In article <38ece63...@news.cyberg8t.com>, gun...@cyberg8t.com wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> > >destroying only property.
> > >
> > So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his
hands, and
> > you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your
home
> > down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
> >
> You don't have to shoot the arsonist, just shoot the cocktail in his hand
> with a high powered rifle.
>
Pagan
rounds, and I trust our firearms unit.
It's been my experience that the military isn't very concerned with the
safety of it's soldiers, and they have no good reason to be. There's
practically no accountability when a soldier dies or gets hurt.
On the other hand, federal and local police agencies have to be damn
careful, lest they get their entire budget taken by a lawsuit.
Pagan
"Ronald Shin" <sh...@mail.chem.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:38EC0BB3...@mail.chem.sc.edu...
>
>
> Pagan wrote:
>
> >
> > Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> > destroying only property.
> >
>
Pagan
<snip>
> But he did make an absolute statement, with NO qualifiers.... I gave a
> qualifier....<G>
If this newsgroup held a poll, I be voted least likely to make an absolute
statement. After all, I'm a fed. ;-)
I did say "probably."
Pagan
Pagan
oppose all laws relating to gun control.
Pagan
<ja...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jaxi-06040...@nwf-nj24-01.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <senllbi...@corp.supernews.com>, "Pagan"
> <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
not-so-humble
> > opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect
us,
> > doesn't make sense.
>
Pagan
teach their children how to safely operate them, I support child safety
locks.
It's smart to have one anyway. If you go on a trip where you don't bring
your weapon, it should be locked up. If you plan on transporting your
weapon on an airline, you must have it locked up. And if your 14 year old
son is having problems at school, his girlfriend just bailed....well, it's a
damn good idea to lock it up.
Your prediction of the future is interesting, and probably correct. Every
time I hear about a kid getting killed while playing with daddy's guns I get
sick to my stomach.
Pagan
"Peter White" <pwh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lj6H4.716$ei.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Pagan <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote in message
> news:senllbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> not-so-humble
> > opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect
> us,
> > doesn't make sense.
> >
Bill & Pat Velek
> JUDGE SHOOTS, KILLS PROTESTING TEEN
Heh, heh. Pretty good shot. ;-)
Now take a look at the follow-up news article. Heh, heh, heh.
News:38ED6068...@cyberback.com
Judge Bill Velek
Damian Harvey
Gunner wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:17:59 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
> >Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
> >I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
> >damaging property"
> >Of course there are two extremes,
> >A) Pulling out you geraniums.
> >Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
> >Suggested punishments,
> >A) A good slapping.
> >Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
> >do it.
> >But as with many things in life most circumstances lie in between those two points.
> >The trick is modifying the punishment accordingly
> >
>
> Duh!!
>
> But he did make an absolute statement, with NO qualifiers.... I gave a
> qualifier....<G>
Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
rbo...@ticnet.com
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:17:59 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
>> >Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
>> >I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
>> >damaging property"
>> >Of course there are two extremes,
>> >A) Pulling out you geraniums.
>> >Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
>> >Suggested punishments,
>> >A) A good slapping.
>> >Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
>> >do it.
>> >But as with many things in life most circumstances lie in between those two points.
>> >The trick is modifying the punishment accordingly
>> >
>>
>> Duh!!
>>
>> But he did make an absolute statement, with NO qualifiers.... I gave a
>> qualifier....<G>
>
>Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
>howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
I am. You (Plural, no any ONE person) got a problem with it? Don't fuck with my
stuff. Period. Full stop. :-)
What's mine is mine. It's not for public consumption.
Rick Bowen
May God bless Texas
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people
who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the
existing Government, they can exercise their
constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary
right to dismember or overthrow it.
-Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4th, 1861
rbo...@ticnet.com
>Your right about Handgun Control Inc. However, that doesn't mean we should
>oppose all laws relating to gun control.
>
>Pagan
All new laws. Start enforcing the 20,000 on the books first.
><ja...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:jaxi-06040...@nwf-nj24-01.ix.netcom.com...
>> In article <senllbi...@corp.supernews.com>, "Pagan"
>> <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
>not-so-humble
>> > opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really effect
>us,
>> > doesn't make sense.
>>
>> On the surface it doesn't. However 'Handgun Control, Inc.' has been known
>> state somewhere that they are working to chip away the 2nd amendment until
>> we no longer have any rights to arms. If that's not a Constitution
>> destroyer then I don't know what is.
>>
>> Jaxi
>
>
Rick Bowen
rbo...@ticnet.com
>
>Bill & Pat Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> wrote in message
>news:38EC8B76...@cyberback.com...
>> Nick Hull wrote:
>>
>> > You don't have to shoot the arsonist, just shoot the cocktail in his
>hand
>> > with a high powered rifle ...
>>
>> ... so that you can then have something to do for the rest of your life
>> -- like guarding your house 24/7 to be sure he doesn't come back?
>>
>> In my instance it would be: "Oops, Officer, I was just trying to shoot
>> the bottle out of his hand, but I'm not that good of a shoot and I
>> sure didn't mean to nail him right between the eyes!"
>>
>> Bill Velek
>
>JUDGE SHOOTS, KILLS PROTESTING TEEN
>
>Arkansas-A local judge today shot and killed 19 year old Tommy Nobrain. The
>boy, who was protesting Judge Bill Velek's recent decision supporting the
>right of Dyson Foods to slaughter chickens, had gone to the judge's home. He
>was carrying what friends described as a bottle of chicken blood to
>symbolize the ongoing slaughter. The judge fired a single shot which struck
>Tommy in the head, killing him instantly.
>
>Police are investigating the incident and had no comment. A source close to
>the investigation quoted Judge Velek as saying, "Oops."
>
>
>Seriously, though, anyone preparing for the possibility that he might
>someday take a life better think through the consequences. Would *I* shoot
>to protect my insured pile of wood and masonary, and my irreplaceable
>collection of Benny Goodman singles? No. Would I shoot to keep my innocent
>child from being fire-bombed in his bed? You can bet the farm on it.
>
>First, survive the encounter. Then, be prepared for the criminal case. Then
>comes the civil trial. Did I mention the court of public opinion?
>
>PW
Still, better to be judged by 12,
than carried by a shop-vac.
rbo...@ticnet.com
>Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and refuse to
>teach their children how to safely operate them, I support child safety
>locks.
>
>It's smart to have one anyway. If you go on a trip where you don't bring
>your weapon, it should be locked up. If you plan on transporting your
>weapon on an airline, you must have it locked up. And if your 14 year old
>son is having problems at school, his girlfriend just bailed....well, it's a
>damn good idea to lock it up.
It's called a safe. The CSL's are so easy to defeat it isn't funny.
>Your prediction of the future is interesting, and probably correct. Every
>time I hear about a kid getting killed while playing with daddy's guns I get
>sick to my stomach.
Join the club.
>Pagan
N9NWO
the
: bed. When I have guests with children, I wear my weapon in a fanny pack.
: I'd never leave this thing around children or strangers.
:
: You're right about younger cops sometimes being more aggressive. On my
: shift there are a few 15+ year veterans who I've learned from, and I've
: found you can usually get more done by not trying to prove your a "Big,
Bad
: Cop". Many of my younger peers think I'm a wuss. Oh well.
I had a senior NCO (MSG) in my former unit who was a Indy cop
with 26 years (I think he is up to 32 years now) on the force. The
department decided that it needed college kids. So they were recruited.
And promoted over the older guys. Most of the young LEOs had
shitty attitudes towards the older guys. It also got them into trouble.
I really think that every LEO should be assumed to be a rookie
until he has 5 years on the force. And all rookies should ride with
older officers for that first 5 years.
BTW, my friend was my 1st Sgt in Saudi. He really had street sense.
: > : <snip>
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
N9NWO
: >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his
hands, and
: >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your
home
: >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
: >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
: >
: >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot
him for
: >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same
line of
: >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to
your old
: >landcruiser?
: Come on Damian, you can do a better troll than that. <G> Nice try
though.
: As you may be aware of, Arson, in the States Can be a capital offense, and
the
: difference between burning down a mans home and castle, is far different
than
: keying his vehicle.
:
: I once caught a fella keying my truck. When the ruckus was over, he was
bound
: to be in pain for a LOT longer than if Id shot him to death. Not to
mention
: giving him a little something to remember me by when he shaved..... using
his
: keys, of course.
The guy I work with has taken punks who broke into his house
and used vise grips to find where his stuff is. You break a knuckle
at a time. Every time the punk uses that hand, he remembers.
Also the Brits, since the gun ban, have taken to doing knee capping
by using a cordless drill instead.
Gunner
wrote:
>
>Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
>howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
>
But, I am an ultra-violent howitzer toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park
trash. And a redneck. And quite proud of the fact.
And your point is?
Gunner
antisdolie
> "antisdolie" <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8cg65q$kgp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <sek8qmp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> > I don't trust someone that needs more than a 65hp engine for his
> > car. I don't trust someone that needs more than a 4Mhz 8086
> > computer. I don't trust someone that needs more than 3 pairs of
> > shorts.
> The subject here is weapons.
No, the subject is placing an arbitrary limit on something, then
declaring anyone that wants MORE is up to no good.
> > Are you saying we should accept unreasonable laws so we can oppose
> > "reasonable" ones? I would think picking the arbitrary number of 10
> > as the number of acceptable rounds is unreasonable. What happens
> > when 10 is too much, and they pick 5?
> No, I think the 10 round limit is foolish.
Me too.
> I'm speaking from a law enforcement duty weapon perspective.
I'm speaking from all perspectives.
> > You mean let them pass all the feel-good-do-nothing-cost-a lot
> > legislation they like, without comment?
> Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> not-so-humble opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that
> don't really effect us, doesn't make sense.
Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
manufacturers already do so. What is being fought is mandatory
"personalized" guns, mandatory storage requirements, etc. I don't need
a trigger lock, I wouldn't use a trigger lock, I think they will create
a danger that doesn't exist now. Too many people are going to think a
trigger lock can be put on a loaded gun, that the gun can be left
anywhere, and their kids will be safe. Some of those are going to
wonder why their government approved trigger lock didn't keep their
son from killing his little sister. Of course, the response will be
more and more gun laws.
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
antisdolie
"Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and refuse
> to teach their children how to safely operate them, I support child
> safety locks.
You know this...how?
> It's smart to have one anyway.
No, its dumb. If you are going to use a trigger lock, and use
it CORRECTLY, then you have a trigger lock on an UNLOADED gun, and the
ammo is stored elsewhere. Far better, that being the case, to keep the
gun in a lock-box - you can also keep the cylinder/magazine with it and
loaded.
> If you go on a trip where you don't bring your weapon, it should be
> locked up.
A trigger lock doesn't lock it up.
> If you plan on transporting your weapon on an airline, you must have
> it locked up.
In an airline approved gun case.
> And if your 14 year old son is having problems at school, his
> girlfriend just bailed....well, it's a damn good idea to lock it up.
Which a trigger lock does not do.
> Your prediction of the future is interesting, and probably correct.
> Every time I hear about a kid getting killed while playing with
> daddy's guns I get sick to my stomach.
Which happens far less than a kid getting killed playing in the family
pool.
lar...@ozemail.com.au
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
***********
SUPREME COURT RULES ON VELEK CASE, BANS GUNS
Washington— In a historic decision today the Supreme Court has
decided that the Second Amendment does, in fact, refer only to "well
regulated militias" and has banned all private ownership of guns.
Justice Furd, in explaining the decision, said "It was the Velek
case that finally tipped the balance and forced us to consider the
issue. There was a huge public outcry when Judge Velek shot and
killed poor little Tommy Nobrain last year. Surveys indicated that
the public felt that when judges became trigger-happy it was time to
ban guns."
***********
NKCA ANNOUNCES VELEK CONTEST
New York— Following the disappearance of Bill Velek, the newly
formed National Knife and Club Association has announced a $2,000,000
reward for his capture and delivery.
Contest organizer Tommy Torquemada has promised a $1,000,000 first
prize for the most creative solution on what to do with Velek when he
was caught. "We do hope that nothing has happened to him", Mr.
Torquemada explained, grinning as he polished the family collection of
torture instruments, "we want him alive. If we get him, we will try
to keep him alive for as long as possible."
The National Knife and Club association was formed two months ago,
and consists of former members of the National Rifle Association.
**************
1==> ...Seriously, I agree with Peter. Consider the consequences.
It might be better to get the family out and retreat than to shoot
even if the threat is real. Loosing the personal possessions might
be a better alternative than trying to stay out of jail.
2==> The threat might *not* be real.
[a] The guy may just be trying to frighten you
[b] he may be playing a practical joke on you
[c] he may be a member of some current events news show who has come
up with the stupid idea of trying to find out what a gun owner does in
such a situation
[d] he might be doing it on a dare, or even as a contestant on a TV
game show
[e] He may be mentally handicapped and not know the consequences of
his actions ...and so on.
Now sure, some of these possibilities involve a stupid and risky
action on the part of the individual, but this is pretty common. How
many people have been shot over the years because they pointed a
realistic toy gun at a nervous cop? How many people have been killed
as the result of a practical joke gone wrong?
Can anyone tell me why any of these possibilities would be
"impossible"?
3==> Perhaps Australians and Americans would actually react in
different ways to such a threat. Perhaps the first assumption that
many Americans would make is that their home is about to be
firebombed.
I think it might be the last assumption I would make, since I can
think of no reason why someone would want to firebomb me. Flame me,
perhaps, but firebomb me, no. :-)
...larryn
"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
Nick Hull
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> ........
> Now sure, some of these possibilities involve a stupid and risky
> action on the part of the individual, but this is pretty common. How
> many people have been shot over the years because they pointed a
> realistic toy gun at a nervous cop?
That's justifiable homicide, especially if the cop or his friends has had
time to 'drop' something.
>How many people have been killed
> as the result of a practical joke gone wrong?
>
ThAt of course is murder, unless you have a badge.
Pagan
votes.
Pagan
<rbo...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:3321A753CA0B80D0.DD550FA4...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:30:40 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> >Your right about Handgun Control Inc. However, that doesn't mean we
should
> >oppose all laws relating to gun control.
> >
> >Pagan
>
> All new laws. Start enforcing the 20,000 on the books first.
>
>
> ><ja...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:jaxi-06040...@nwf-nj24-01.ix.netcom.com...
> >> In article <senllbi...@corp.supernews.com>, "Pagan"
> >> <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> >not-so-humble
> >> > opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that don't really
effect
> >us,
> >> > doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> On the surface it doesn't. However 'Handgun Control, Inc.' has been
known
> >> state somewhere that they are working to chip away the 2nd amendment
until
> >> we no longer have any rights to arms. If that's not a Constitution
> >> destroyer then I don't know what is.
> >>
> >> Jaxi
> >
> >
>
Pagan
Pagan
> In article <seq1eik...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> > Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and refuse
> > to teach their children how to safely operate them, I support child
> > safety locks.
>
> You know this...how?
By reading the paper and the news stories forwarded in police circles
detailing how children playing with guns get killed. I didn't make this up.
Wish I did.
> > It's smart to have one anyway.
>
> No, its dumb. If you are going to use a trigger lock, and use
> it CORRECTLY, then you have a trigger lock on an UNLOADED gun, and the
> ammo is stored elsewhere. Far better, that being the case, to keep the
> gun in a lock-box - you can also keep the cylinder/magazine with it and
> loaded.
Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply blocks
the trigger, preventing it from being pulled. A lock box works well too,
especially the ones which you place your hand on the side and push a
combination with your fingers. The drawback is they are bulky and a pain in
the ass to relocate.
> > If you go on a trip where you don't bring your weapon, it should be
> > locked up.
>
> A trigger lock doesn't lock it up.
It prevents the weapon from being fired immediately. This may be enough to
discourage a casual thief, and also prevent a tragedy when your brother in
law comes by the check on the place, toting his 5 year old son along.
> > If you plan on transporting your weapon on an airline, you must have
> > it locked up.
>
> In an airline approved gun case.
Your right about that. The trigger lock I was issued would also lock the
case, which was approved by the FAA.
> > And if your 14 year old son is having problems at school, his
> > girlfriend just bailed....well, it's a damn good idea to lock it up.
>
> Which a trigger lock does not do.
A trigger lock can be defeated, but it's not the easiest thing to do, and it
takes time.
> > Your prediction of the future is interesting, and probably correct.
> > Every time I hear about a kid getting killed while playing with
> > daddy's guns I get sick to my stomach.
>
> Which happens far less than a kid getting killed playing in the family
> pool.
Same with mothers abusing their children. In the US, children are most
likely to die at the hands of their mothers. This doesn't mean guns should
not be kept away from children unskilled in their use, or fences should be
removed from pools.
Pagan
Pagan
> > I'm speaking from a law enforcement duty weapon perspective.
>
> I'm speaking from all perspectives.
That's cool and all, but if we are having one discussion from two different
perspectives, it's going to be a circus. The point I was making was I do
not feel the need for 13 or 16 bullets for a police officer's self defense.
Reason being is the 9mm round was extremely popular because you could cram
all these bullets in one gun at a time. The 9mm round sucks for police
carry, in my opinion (and the opinion of a growing number of agencies). I'd
rather have my 11 rounds that I can be very sure will do their job than a
shitload of bullets that probably won't do diddly.
It would be fun for plinking, though.
> > > You mean let them pass all the feel-good-do-nothing-cost-a lot
> > > legislation they like, without comment?
>
> > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> > not-so-humble opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that
> > don't really effect us, doesn't make sense.
>
> Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
> manufacturers already do so.
Was I mistaken when I saw on the news the NRA used a mayor's demonstration
of the use of trigger locks in a campaign against them? I may not have been
paying attention, as this week has been a pain in the ass.
> What is being fought is mandatory
> "personalized" guns, mandatory storage requirements, etc. I don't need
> a trigger lock, I wouldn't use a trigger lock, I think they will create
> a danger that doesn't exist now. Too many people are going to think a
> trigger lock can be put on a loaded gun, that the gun can be left
> anywhere, and their kids will be safe. Some of those are going to
> wonder why their government approved trigger lock didn't keep their
> son from killing his little sister. Of course, the response will be
> more and more gun laws.
I'm sure a trigger lock is not a universal need. Everybody's situation is
different. I rarely use mine, in fact, because I don't have kids and almost
never leave my duty weapon at home. My rifles are in the closet, with the
bolts removed and locked up, and I haven't gotten around to buying ammo. On
the other hand, there are, I believe, a great many people who could avoid
tragedy by placing a trigger lock on their gun. There will always be stupid
people....I just witnessed a couple hundred of them on the freeway this
morning. Darwin Lives!
Gunner
wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
>> >howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
>> >
>> But, I am an ultra-violent howitzer toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park
>> trash. And a redneck. And quite proud of the fact.
>>
>> And your point is?
>
>My point is maybe you'd like to join us in a civilisation someday.
>
>>
>>
>> Gunner
>>
I am a member of a civilization. Fine one. Perhaps not the same subset as the
one you inhabit, but a valid subset non the least.
Now are you referring to the Australians Post-Teen subset?
The Australian NSW Subset?
The Lower Class Australian Subset?
The Middle Class Australian Post-Teen going to College Subset?
As a matter of fact, I probably am a member of a far wider variety of
"subsets" than you are.
Even further, I would be willing to bet that I can function quite well in a
wider variety of subsets than you can. By a vast margin.
So, your self-centered smarmy arrogance is probably not as warranted as
perhaps you think it is.
When was the last time you attended a Black Tie dinner function with the
president of a Fortune 500 Company? Last year for me.
When was the last time you attended a beer bash with a biker gang? 8 months
ago for me.
When was the last time you welded corrals on a working cattle ranch? Last
weekend for me. With Tri-tip bbq afterwards....yummmm!!! Followed by impromptu
rodeo.......ouch!
When was the last time you stalked, killed (with a bow, spear, rifle,
handgun), butchered, cooked and ate wild game? Most of my life, for me.
When was the last time you sat down over pizza and discussed the economy with
a world class economist? Last month, for me.
I can go on.....
So when you start expounding on the glories of your limited view of
"civilization"..... best step back a bit and look at the big picture, Hoss.
Pagan
Pagan
"Gunner" <gun...@cyberg8t.com> wrote in message
news:38ee0a25...@news.cyberg8t.com...
Bill
Pagan wrote:
> That's cool and all, but if we are having one discussion from two different
> perspectives, it's going to be a circus. The point I was making was I do
> not feel the need for 13 or 16 bullets for a police officer's self defense.
> Reason being is the 9mm round was extremely popular because you could cram
> all these bullets in one gun at a time. The 9mm round sucks for police
> carry, in my opinion (and the opinion of a growing number of agencies). I'd
> rather have my 11 rounds that I can be very sure will do their job than a
> shitload of bullets that probably won't do diddly.
Okay let me shoot you in the chest with a 9mm then you can see if it is a diddly
round. .38's where used for years by the police, it is less 'effective' on
paper the the 9mm, but that is what training if for. In the right hands a .22
rim fire will kill (or stop a criminal). Bigger is not better if your still
don't know what to do.
>
> > Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
> > manufacturers already do so.
>
> Was I mistaken when I saw on the news the NRA used a mayor's demonstration
> of the use of trigger locks in a campaign against them? I may not have been
> paying attention, as this week has been a pain in the ass.
The anti gunners want to make it mandatory, that is want the NRA is fighting -
forcing the industry to do something. They have no problems with the voluntary
supply of trigger locks as S&W (and others) has been doing for 4 years.
Bill
Pagan wrote:
> "antisdolie" <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8cko1h$j1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <seq1eik...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and refuse
> > > to teach their children how to safely operate them, I support child
> > > safety locks.
> >
> > You know this...how?
>
> By reading the paper and the news stories forwarded in police circles
> detailing how children playing with guns get killed. I didn't make this up.
> Wish I did.
>
Teaching the children now to respect and use firearms is a much wiser choice.
While I have no problems with Trigger locks, personal responsibility is the more
prudent move.
Just a few months ago here in Oregon, a few miles from where I live, some
dumbass drugie shot it out with his dealer, killed one person & wounded
another. This guy then went banging on neighbors door looking for a get away
car to steal. This was during the day when most adults are at work. Seems he
decided to beat on the wrong door. He went up to one house kicked open the
door, there was two kids in the house (after school), one I believe was like 6
the other 10 or so, Well the older brother seeing the trouble brewing in the
neighborhood went to get his dad's legally owned pistol, loaded it and went to
defend himself and his little brother. The drugie kicked open the door with a
gun in his hand looking for the keys to the family van in the driveway. This 10
year old having been taught how to and when to properly use a fire arm shot this
drugie in defense of his 6 year old brother and himself. Hit the bad guy center
mass, just as dad had taught him, the drugie took off to be found a week or so
later with a sucking chest wound hiding in a garden shed miles away. This 10
year old and his brother would have been dead or taken hostage had that firearm
been rendered unusable by a child proof lock only the parents had the
combination, key or magic ring that would have made it fire.
My own father taught me to respect and handle firearms with great care. They
when kept in a gun cabinet, but we told only to use them in an emergency or
under supervision by our parents at the gun range. We knew better then touch
them 'playing' around with them, we knew we would be punished. Our parents knew
if we touched the guns it was not the guns fault, but ours and we would be so
treated. No one was ever shot with kids playing with guns when I grew up, and
all the neighbor families treated guns the same. We knew better, but we also
knew when and how to use them if the need arise.
We teach our children to drive a car properly, bath themselves, eat the right
foods, stay away from strangers, gun use and gun safety should be no different.
As much as the antigunners wish to believe in civilization it is not that
civilized. The world is a dangerous place, people make it so, guns do not.
According to FBI and AFT statistics 99.8 percent of ALL guns legally owned in
America are NEVER used in a Crime. Yes we have a lot of homicides in the US,
freedom does have it's draw backs, criminals are free to do crimes until they
are put into jail. Of all the violent crimes committed in the US over 75% did
not even involve a gun in any way.
Switzerland has full automatic assault weapons in almost every home, it's crime
rate is the lowest in the world. The countries with strict gun control have
some of the most highest rates. Any country that has had people like Stalin,
Hitler, Soddam Hussian, Kolminei, etc come into power had gun control.
11,000,000 people where lead to their deaths 50 years ago in Germany because
they where unarmed. The antigunners say it could not happen here. They are
right, but only because we have private ownership of firearms, not because we
are different, how many people in the US come from central Europe ? lots. We
are not that different, but we the people are armed. Once private ownership is
denied it will happen here to. Remember the Germans voted Hitler into office,
he did not invade or take over.
Yes we in the US have private ownership of weapons and a high crime rate, but I
suggest that if everyone took responsibility for their own self defense we would
have the lowest in the world. Ask any criminal who he or she would commit a
crime against, a armed person trained and willing to defend themselves or a
unarmed person unwilling to defend themselves.
All the hype in the news about S&W, is just that, hype, if the anti gunners had
a clue and took the time to look for the truth they would know that S&W has been
shipping ALL their guns with trigger locks (as many other manufacturers) for
over 4 years. 'Smart Gun' technology has been on the drawing boards for years,
so far no technology works. They pulled a fast one over the antigun lawyers,
they made it seem like they where going to start providing trigger locks and
develop smart guns because of the current lawsuit, but as any one who followed
the industry will tell you that's old news folks.
>
> > > It's smart to have one anyway.
> >
> > No, its dumb. If you are going to use a trigger lock, and use
> > it CORRECTLY, then you have a trigger lock on an UNLOADED gun, and the
> > ammo is stored elsewhere. Far better, that being the case, to keep the
> > gun in a lock-box - you can also keep the cylinder/magazine with it and
> > loaded.
>
> Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply blocks
> the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
Not true, some gun locks require the magazine to be removed from the gun.
Gunner
>But have you been on Jerry Springer??? Wuss... ;-)
>
>Pagan
Thanks Pagan! Spewed pork and beans all over myself......*&^%$!
<G>
Gunner
Gunner
>But have you been on Jerry Springer??? Wuss... ;-)
>
>Pagan
But I do look Swave and Deboner in a tux......
<G>
Gunner
d'geezer
> <snip>
> > Are you a cop? If so what do you think about the militarization of the
> > police forces throughout the U.S.? What do you think this portends for the
> > future as far as our rights are concerned?
>
> There's a lot of answer for a question like that. First, yes, I'm a cop.
> Police forces in this era need a certain amount of military training and
> abilities, but they also need to resist the urge to use them unless there
> are no alternatives. There's a lot of temptation to go out and play Rambo.
>
> > rest of the populace? Would you want your wife/kids/other family, etc. to
> > have one with a trigger lock for self defense?
>
> My weapon was issued with a trigger lock, and even though is was pretty
> crappy, it was effective. If you practice, one of the locks sold on the
> open market can be opened in less than a second or two. If you take basic
> security precautions (good solid doors, locked windows, outside lighting)
> you generally don't have to worry about being able to do a quick draw inside
> your house. Also, a few NRA stickers placed around doesn't hurt either.
>
>
> > Jaxi
I'm sorry to say I do not believe you are an LEO. Or you are stupid.
Please don't tell me it is both. NRA stickers? Do not folks, DO NOT,
advertise you own guns. That marks your home as a target every time. The
only identification to NRA that goblins should see is on the front of
your T-shirt when you sweep your jacket back to clear your weapon for
the draw. Please to not put up signs advertising you are a gun owner.
I guess I'll lay off you and assume you just had a weak moment, and said
something and posted it here before thinking Pagan, but I decidedly do
not want a goblin to know I'm armed until my gun is in my hand. The
scenario is very bad for the gun owner who meets a perp prepared to take
him or her out because of known carry.
thnx...d'geezer
--
"Damn, you are a mean son-of-a-bitch. I've always admired that in a
person."
d'geezer 1935
d'geezer
>
> "Ronald Shin" <sh...@mail.chem.sc.edu> wrote in message
> news:38EB4353...@mail.chem.sc.edu...
> >
> >
> > Pagan wrote:
> >
> > > Thing is, I don't really trust someone who needs ultra high capacity
> mags
> > > for a pistol used for defense. If somebody needs 16 rounds to feel
> safe, I
> > > really don't want to work with them.
Since when is magazine capacity a barometer for the level of safety one
feels? I have felt safe with 6 and safe with 16. The circumstances vary
and I respond to them. The person you work with who would carry 16 may
know something you don't. Conclusion jumping is a barrier to knowledge.
> >
> > I must strongly disagree here. During the LA riots of 1992, some of my
> > relatives who owned stores there found those 17 round magazines *very*
> useful
> > when trying to fend off a dozen looters/arsonists at a time.
>
> Good point. But the need for those are few and far between. A 10 round mag
> would have almost the same effect. Of course, this goes the other way.
> Laws forbidding 17 round mags are stupid for the same reason.
Fires in my home are few and far between. I want the highest capacity
extinguishers regardless and pretty much damn the cost and
inconvenience. I have people and property to protect. How about facing
multiple attackers like the poster said. 10 rounds will be insufficient
if you have 10 perps. Or even one perp with a 16 round mag "nine" going
off in your face.
>
> > > I personally think the 12 (11 +1) we
> > > carry is overkill for any shooting we are likely to encounter. That is,
> > > except for the folks who can't hit their target. The best thing about
> it is
> > > reduced reloading during qualification.
> >
> > Sometimes, when a mass of armed attackers are about to hurl Molotov
> cocktails at
> > a store that you have worked so long and hard to get up and running, are
> intent
> > on committing their mis-deeds, you're darn right, that reduced reloading
> helps.
>
> Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> destroying only property.
The problem with people who will come in the daylight, or even at night,
and enter your property for destruction and or theft aren't usually
willing to stop. IN some states with current harsh laws based on the
"three strikes you are out" they may be on their third strike and don't
want any witnesses.
> >
> > > People who desire used LEO guns may be in for a shock. These guns are
> not
> > > as well taken care of as the older revolvers, and they don't have the
> > > tolerance for abuse.
> >
> > Depends on the brand. I have seen Glocks go through a tremendous amount
> of
> > abuse, and all they needed were the polymer sights replaced (but hey!
> Those
> > Trijicons would certainly be a good replacement). That, and perhaps a new
> > coating of black oxide.
We are in total agreement here. The person in the world I'd give my 23
to would be my children. And that is probably where it will go.
>
> I'm assuming most agencies don't issue Glocks. Our Berrettas last about 10k
> rounds, and the only thing that's good after that are the grips. Sounds
> like a lot, but not if you consider qualifications and practice.
>
> > > I'd think long and hard before even considering buying
> > > a weapon used by law enforcement, unless it was my own issued gun.
> >
> > They usually come factory refurbished (if you are talking about most
> > semiautomatic police trade-ins).
> >
> > Keep 'em in the x-ring!
> >
> >
> >
Sorry to be so bitchy about some issues. Comes with being old and in
lots of bad situations that I survived while others didn't. Makes one a
damned annoying know-it-all, but on the other hand it works well for
teaching if anyone cares to learn. Stay alive and keep 'em in the
x-ring. d'geezer
Pagan
"Bill" <Boya...@clipper.net> wrote in message
news:38EE48A1...@clipper.net...
<megasnip>
I agree 100% it's better to train kids in the safe use of guns. It still
doesn't hurt having a trigger lock handy.
> > Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply
blocks
> > the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
>
> Not true, some gun locks require the magazine to be removed from the gun.
I'm talking about my trigger lock. I've seen several trigger locks and
other types of gadgets that I wouldn't use. That doesn't mean trigger locks
are bad.
Pagan
> <another snip>
Pagan
>
>
> Pagan wrote:
>
> > That's cool and all, but if we are having one discussion from two
different
> > perspectives, it's going to be a circus. The point I was making was I
do
> > not feel the need for 13 or 16 bullets for a police officer's self
defense.
> > Reason being is the 9mm round was extremely popular because you could
cram
> > all these bullets in one gun at a time. The 9mm round sucks for police
> > carry, in my opinion (and the opinion of a growing number of agencies).
I'd
> > rather have my 11 rounds that I can be very sure will do their job than
a
> > shitload of bullets that probably won't do diddly.
>
> Okay let me shoot you in the chest with a 9mm then you can see if it is a
diddly
> round. .38's where used for years by the police, it is less 'effective'
on
> paper the the 9mm, but that is what training if for. In the right hands a
.22
> rim fire will kill (or stop a criminal). Bigger is not better if your
still
> don't know what to do.
I never said anything about bigger is better, nor am I worried about a
bullet being effective on paper. The 9mm round has been proven less
effective at stopping power than many other rounds, including the .357, .45
and the .40 which is what we carry. It makes more sense to carry a smaller
number of more effective rounds than a larger number of ineffective rounds.
A nasty fart has stopping power too, but I'm not going to rely on that.
> >
> > > Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
> > > manufacturers already do so.
> >
> > Was I mistaken when I saw on the news the NRA used a mayor's
demonstration
> > of the use of trigger locks in a campaign against them? I may not have
been
> > paying attention, as this week has been a pain in the ass.
>
> The anti gunners want to make it mandatory, that is want the NRA is
fighting -
> forcing the industry to do something. They have no problems with the
voluntary
> supply of trigger locks as S&W (and others) has been doing for 4 years.
Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks.
Pagan
Damian Harvey
Gunner wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:07:03 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
> >howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
> >
> But, I am an ultra-violent howitzer toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park
> trash. And a redneck. And quite proud of the fact.
>
> And your point is?
My point is maybe you'd like to join us in a civilisation someday.
>
>
> Gunner
>
Damian Harvey
"Frank J. Zember" wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:55:19 +0930, Damian Harvey
> <harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Gunner wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >> >destroying only property.
> >> >
> >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
> >>
> >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
> >
> >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
> >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
> >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
> >landcruiser?
>
> No, that does not justify shooting them. It does, however, justify a
> good, old-fashioned ass kicking.
That's exactly my point
rbo...@ticnet.com
The exact reason that I argue/d against "open-carry". Threat assessment.
Bravo-Golf sees that you are armed, you will go down first, whe HE is ready to make
HIS move.
The
>scenario is very bad for the gun owner who meets a perp prepared to take
>him or her out because of known carry.
>
>thnx...d'geezer
>--
>"Damn, you are a mean son-of-a-bitch. I've always admired that in a
>person."
> d'geezer 1935
Rick Bowen
rbo...@ticnet.com
>
>"Bill" <Boya...@clipper.net> wrote in message
>news:38EE48A1...@clipper.net...
><megasnip>
>
>I agree 100% it's better to train kids in the safe use of guns. It still
>doesn't hurt having a trigger lock handy.
>
>> > Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply
>blocks
>> > the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
>>
>> Not true, some gun locks require the magazine to be removed from the gun.
>
>I'm talking about my trigger lock. I've seen several trigger locks and
>other types of gadgets that I wouldn't use. That doesn't mean trigger locks
>are bad.
>
>Pagan
Yours may not be. But what about the crap that the manufacturers include with their
guns? (Newsflash! Mossberg shotguns come with gun locks!!) It's a lock, and it fits
on the gun. Now, ignorant Joe Commonman figures that since it came from the
manufacturer that IT must be safe, right?
(Mass production = cheapest thing that reaonably passes for "works") ie., tires.
Cheapest tires that are semi-round and roll go on all but the premium pick-ups. GM
used to use Uniroyal Tiger Paws for all standard P/U's. Cheapest,
rounded-shouldered-after-500-miles-crap.
IOW, cheapest rig that will pass for a locking system. THOSE are the ones that will
come with new guns, and the everyday man won't know the difference.
Pagan
their guns to avoid liability, but I can see them including crap (like my
Berretta).
Although the tires that came on my truck are some of the best I've seen,
I've seen plenty of dealer tires that pooped out. Strange world.
Pagan
<rbo...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:C140D81F47A19062.CC467D99...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 22:49:55 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill" <Boya...@clipper.net> wrote in message
> >news:38EE48A1...@clipper.net...
> ><megasnip>
> >
> >I agree 100% it's better to train kids in the safe use of guns. It still
> >doesn't hurt having a trigger lock handy.
> >
> >> > Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply
> >blocks
> >> > the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
> >>
> >> Not true, some gun locks require the magazine to be removed from the
gun.
> >
Damian Harvey
Gunner wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:11:51 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >Maybe you should give two qualifiers so you don't look like an ultra-violent,
> >> >howitzer-toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park trash. :)
> >> >
> >> But, I am an ultra-violent howitzer toting piece of poor, white, trailer-park
> >> trash. And a redneck. And quite proud of the fact.
> >>
> >> And your point is?
> >
> >My point is maybe you'd like to join us in a civilisation someday.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Gunner
> >>
Ooh, did I touch a nerve there Gunner?
Damian Harvey
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:47 +0930, Damian Harvey
> <harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >"Frank J. Zember" wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:55:19 +0930, Damian Harvey
> >> <harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Gunner wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> >> >> >destroying only property.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> >> >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> >> >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
> >> >>
> >> >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
> >> >
> >> >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
> >> >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
> >> >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
> >> >landcruiser?
> >>
> >> No, that does not justify shooting them. It does, however, justify a
> >> good, old-fashioned ass kicking.
> >
> >That's exactly my point
>
> And if the aggressor is young, strong, big, and obviously
> NOT the one about to get his ass kicked? What then?
You either put up with that scratch or get your mates over for a bit of a rumble.
>
>
> Robert Sturgeon-
> "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
> After 68 years, it's still working.
>
> http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Bill & Pat Velek
You made two excellent points:
1. Don't advertise that your home contains guns; it might just attract
burglars rather than scare them away.
2. Don't advertise that you are carrying; it will make you the first
target when something nasty is about to do down. I used to think that
it would discourage something from going down -- and it might in a
number of cases -- but I can see now that all the perp would do is
stand near me when he pulled his gun and either off me or just take my
gun along with the rest of the lot that he would be stealing, etc.
Thanks.
Bill Velek
Bill & Pat Velek
snip
> But in
> a survival situation where the "law" isn't around to deal
> with vandals or vandals' victims, my "mates" would probably
> be Mr. Remington and Mr. Ruger.
>
> Under those circumstances, I'd take "car keying" as a
> symptom of even worse behavior to come, and react with a
> zero-tolerance policy.
Robert, surely you're not saying that you would shoot someone for
keying your car?
Bill Velek
Noah Simoneaux
<ve...@cyberback.com> wrote:
(snip)
>> Under those circumstances, I'd take "car keying" as a
>> symptom of even worse behavior to come, and react with a
>> zero-tolerance policy.
>
>Robert, surely you're not saying that you would shoot someone for
>keying your car?
No, under zero-tolerance policy you shoot them when they get ready to
key your car. ;)
Noah Simoneaux
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
rbo...@ticnet.com
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:46:34 +0930, Damian Harvey
>Not good enough an answer- for me anyway. Since this is a
>survivalism NG, I'll say- right now, you're correct. But in
>a survival situation where the "law" isn't around to deal
>with vandals or vandals' victims, my "mates" would probably
>be Mr. Remington and Mr. Ruger.
>
>Under those circumstances, I'd take "car keying" as a
>symptom of even worse behavior to come, and react with a
>zero-tolerance policy.
Get an estimate for a paint job. Dallas, Texas area, roughly $750.00 to $1250.00
depending on the length of the "keying". Sorry, I don't have $1250.00 to drop for
fixing someone elses BS.
>Robert Sturgeon-
>"Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
>After 68 years, it's still working.
>
>http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Rick Bowen
d'geezer
>
> Gunner wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:55:19 +0930, Damian Harvey <harv...@camtech.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
> > >> >destroying only property.
> > >> >
> > >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
> > >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
> > >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
> > >>
> > >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
> > >
> > >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
> > >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
> > >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
> > >landcruiser?
> >
> > As you may be aware of, Arson, in the States Can be a capital offense, and the
> > difference between burning down a mans home and castle, is far different than
> > keying his vehicle.
> >
> > I once caught a fella keying my truck. When the ruckus was over, he was bound
> > to be in pain for a LOT longer than if Id shot him to death. Not to mention
> > giving him a little something to remember me by when he shaved..... using his
> > keys, of course.
> >
> > Gunner
>
> Pagan said "I'm probably not going to shoot someone for destroying only property."
> Gunner said "Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking......."
> I say "Sweet Jeeezus...protect me from people who would take another humans life for
> damaging property"
> Of course there are two extremes,
> A) Pulling out you geraniums.
> Z) Torching your home with your life's possesions and family memorabilia.
> Suggested punishments,
> A) A good slapping.
> Z) Maybe it might extend to taking a mans life ? I for one wouldn't have the balls to
> do it.
> But as with many things in life most circumstances lie in between those two points.
> The trick is modifying the punishment accordingly
>
Having had a small amount of experience with being struck by and
striking others I would prefer not to be hit by amateurs. They make
"mistakes" that can kill. A pro knows that they can kill with certain
strikes. An amateur watches tv and thinks he or she will just "knock you
out" by hitting. But in either case, since I can't be sure of their
intent not to take my life, I will stop them with a fire arm...unless of
course I have use my own hands, feet, head, etc. though I'm getting a
little old for that. d'geezer
Gunner
>
>
>Gunner wrote:
Yup, you surly did. I know that you are capable of far better lines of reasonings than the drivel
and arrogance you originally posted, and as I do like you, I thought you might need a bit of a
nudge, sorta like a slot car stuck on a curve. <G>
Gunner
lar...@ozemail.com.au
(rbo...@ticnet.com) , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 07:53:30 -0700, Robert Sturgeon <rstu...@calwest.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:46:34 +0930, Damian Harvey
>><harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:12:47 +0930, Damian Harvey
>>>> <harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >"Frank J. Zember" wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 15:55:19 +0930, Damian Harvey
>>>> >> <harv...@camtech.net.au> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Gunner wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:59:16 -0700, "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >Even if I had no insurance, I'm probably not going to shoot someone for
>>>> >> >> >destroying only property.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> So, if someone is charging your home with a molotov cocktail in his hands, and
>>>> >> >> you have every reason to believe that he is only wanting to burn your home
>>>> >> >> down, not harm you or your family, you would let him do it?
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Sweet Jeeezus.... protect us from such thinking.......
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >What about a guy scratching your car with a key, I'm not going to shoot him for
>>>> >> >that (not just becaus eI don't have a gun either) That follows the same line of
>>>> >> >thought or would you blow a guy away for doing $50 worth of damage to your old
>>>> >> >landcruiser?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, that does not justify shooting them. It does, however, justify a
>>>> >> good, old-fashioned ass kicking.
>>>> >
>>>> >That's exactly my point
>>>>
>>>> And if the aggressor is young, strong, big, and obviously
>>>> NOT the one about to get his ass kicked? What then?
>>>
>>>You either put up with that scratch or get your mates over for a bit of a rumble.
>>
>>Not good enough an answer- for me anyway. Since this is a
>>survivalism NG, I'll say- right now, you're correct. But in
>>a survival situation where the "law" isn't around to deal
>>with vandals or vandals' victims, my "mates" would probably
>>be Mr. Remington and Mr. Ruger.
>>
>>Under those circumstances, I'd take "car keying" as a
>>symptom of even worse behavior to come, and react with a
>>zero-tolerance policy.
>
>Get an estimate for a paint job. Dallas, Texas area, roughly $750.00 to $1250.00
>depending on the length of the "keying". Sorry, I don't have $1250.00 to drop for
>fixing someone elses BS.
>
1==> Wouldn't your car insurance cover such damage?
2==> Does Texas law actually allow you to shoot someone for "keying"
your car, Robert? Here, if you even shot *at* them you would be
looking for a lot more money for bail and the cost of legal advice.
Even then you might not escape a fine and/or jail.
—larryn
"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
Gunner
>>>
>>>Under those circumstances, I'd take "car keying" as a
>>>symptom of even worse behavior to come, and react with a
>>>zero-tolerance policy.
>>
>>Get an estimate for a paint job. Dallas, Texas area, roughly $750.00 to $1250.00
>>depending on the length of the "keying". Sorry, I don't have $1250.00 to drop for
>>fixing someone elses BS.
>>
>1==> Wouldn't your car insurance cover such damage?
>
>2==> Does Texas law actually allow you to shoot someone for "keying"
>your car, Robert? Here, if you even shot *at* them you would be
>looking for a lot more money for bail and the cost of legal advice.
>Even then you might not escape a fine and/or jail.
>
>—larryn
Larry,
Under Texas Law, if the keying was done at night, as an act of vandalism... Yes.
Texas has long had very open policies about the use of deadly force to protect property. A bit ago,
there was a thread about a Repoman getting shot, and the shooter exonerated, because the Repoman
tried to reposess the wrong vehicle, at night, and the owner simply stepped outside, and shot up the
decedents truck, with a rifle, from a distance. On the other hand, Texas executes probably the most
number of criminals of any US state, so a person had better have all their ducks in a row, before
using deadly force.
Gunner
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Hmm, some of you folk don't seem to be very tolerant of mistakes.:-)
I think I prefer our more easy going lifestyle.
Gunner
>>
>Hmm, some of you folk don't seem to be very tolerant of mistakes.:-)
>I think I prefer our more easy going lifestyle.
>
>—larryn
>
>"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
Larry, think real hard about your definition of Mistake. In the case of the repo man getting
shot...perhaps it was a mistake on his part. But so is checking your gas tank with a lit match.
Exothermic reactions are often less tolerant of mistakes..<G>. Evidently the repo man did NOT use
ordinate care in doing his job, and like the gas tank scenario... paid for it.
Keying a $1200 paint job, or stealing my lawn mower, is not a "Mistake".
Gunner
antisdolie
"Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> > > Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and
> > > refuse to teach their children how to safely operate them, I
> > > support child safety locks.
> > You know this...how?
> By reading the paper and the news stories forwarded in police circles
> detailing how children playing with guns get killed. I didn't make
> this up. Wish I did.
I think you did, unless you count 19 year old drug dealers shooting each
other over street corners as "playing with guns" that is. The number of
REAL kids accidentally killed each year ranks way down the list. I
believe more children 5 and under are drowned in 5 gallon buckets than
with guns.
> > > It's smart to have one anyway.
> > No, its dumb. If you are going to use a trigger lock, and use
> > it CORRECTLY, then you have a trigger lock on an UNLOADED gun, and
> > the ammo is stored elsewhere. Far better, that being the case, to
> > keep the gun in a lock-box - you can also keep the cylinder/magazine
> > with it and loaded.
> Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply
> blocks the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
I bought a trigger blocking type trigger lock a few years ago, put it on
my S&W 686 (sold it a few years ago), and was able to cock the hammer
and by pulling on the trigger lock, was able to release the hammer -
meaning it could be fired. On a lever action rifle it was useless, for
obvious reasons. Needless to say, the trigger lock found a place in my
trashcan. BTW, if you read the instructions that came with the trigger
lock, you would have seen that is says "DO NOT INSTALL ON A LOADED GUN."
> > > If you go on a trip where you don't bring your weapon, it should
> > > be locked up.
> > A trigger lock doesn't lock it up.
> It prevents the weapon from being fired immediately. This may be
> enough to discourage a casual thief, and also prevent a tragedy when
> your brother in law comes by the check on the place, toting his 5 year
> old son along.
A caual thief would take it, and with a hacksaw, have it off in a few
minutes. You cannot be serious and say that a thief will look at a gun,
and say "Gee, I'd steal that if it weren't for that damn trigger lock!"
> > In an airline approved gun case.
> Your right about that. The trigger lock I was issued would also lock
> the case, which was approved by the FAA.
How does a trigger lock lock a case? Is your trigger lock a padlock?
> A trigger lock can be defeated, but it's not the easiest thing to do,
> and it takes time.
Assuming it will prevent the gun from being fired even when installed,
about 5 minutes with a hacksaw will suffice.
> > Which happens far less than a kid getting killed playing in the
> > family pool.
> Same with mothers abusing their children. In the US, children are
> most likely to die at the hands of their mothers. This doesn't mean
> guns should not be kept away from children unskilled in their use, or
> fences should be removed from pools.
Nor is anyone mandating that mothers' hands be encased in thick, soft,
padded gloves.
antisdolie
"Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
> > > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> > > not-so-humble opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that
> > > don't really effect us, doesn't make sense.
> > Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
> > manufacturers already do so.
> Was I mistaken when I saw on the news the NRA used a mayor's
> demonstration of the use of trigger locks in a campaign against them?
Well, yes and no. It was MD Gov. Glendening whom wants the use of
locking devices mandated, and all guns sold in MD within 3 years MUST
have internal locking devices. He was demonstrating how easy and fast
locking devices can be disabled, to show there was no reason to fight
his proposals. Well, it took over a minute and a half, and with the
help of someone else, to remove the lock (it was a magazine well lock).
He was laughing up a storm. The NRA simply said your safely is no
laughing matter. Tell me, would you like that lock on your carry gun?
> > What is being fought is mandatory "personalized" guns, mandatory
> > storage requirements, etc. I don't need a trigger lock, I wouldn't
> > use a trigger lock, I think they will create a danger that doesn't
> > exist now. Too many people are going to think a trigger lock can be
> > put on a loaded gun, that the gun can be left anywhere, and their
> > kids will be safe. Some of those are going to wonder why their
> > government approved trigger lock didn't keep their son from killing
> > his little sister. Of course, the response will be more and more
> > gun laws.
> I'm sure a trigger lock is not a universal need.
Yet various government agencies what to make it a universal requirement,
a one-size-fits-all approach that will do nothing, except get a few more
people killed because all they think is "Gee, Clinton says this trigger
lock will save my children."
antisdolie
<C140D81F47A19062.CC467D99...@lp.airnews.net>,
rbo...@ticnet.com wrote:
> Yours may not be. But what about the crap that the manufacturers
> include with their guns? (Newsflash! Mossberg shotguns come with gun
> locks!!) It's a lock, and it fits on the gun. Now, ignorant Joe
> Commonman figures that since it came from the manufacturer that IT
> must be safe, right?
Last year, the Ocean County NJ prosecutor's office gave trigger locks to
any and all that wanted them - of course, if you asked for more than 1,
they wanted your name and addreess - my friend got one, and showed it
around. It was the cheapest piece of PLASTIC crap that I ever did see.
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>>Texas has long had very open policies about the use of deadly force to protect property. A bit ago,
>>there was a thread about a Repoman getting shot, and the shooter exonerated, because the Repoman
>>tried to reposess the wrong vehicle, at night, and the owner simply stepped outside, and shot up the
>>decedents truck, with a rifle, from a distance. On the other hand, Texas executes probably the most
>>number of criminals of any US state, so a person had better have all their ducks in a row, before
>>using deadly force.
>>
>>Gunner
Actually, in the Texas incident, the repo guy was taking the correct
vehicle, but the owner of the vehicle shot him. Since the laws of
Texas allow that he wasn't charged with any crime.
>>
>Hmm, some of you folk don't seem to be very tolerant of mistakes.:-)
>I think I prefer our more easy going lifestyle.
I'm fairly easygoing, but I learned long ago in basic training that
sometimes when you make a mistake it's(as the drill sergeant put it) "
A lick on your tired old ass."
Pagan
"antisdolie" <uspc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8csjq8$r0k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ses3sp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Child safety locks cost $10. Fighting that is foolish, in my
> > > > not-so-humble opinion. Fighting every gun law, even the ones that
> > > > don't really effect us, doesn't make sense.
>
> > > Nobody is fighting trigger locks being supplied with guns, hell MOST
> > > manufacturers already do so.
>
> > Was I mistaken when I saw on the news the NRA used a mayor's
> > demonstration of the use of trigger locks in a campaign against them?
>
> Well, yes and no. It was MD Gov. Glendening whom wants the use of
> locking devices mandated, and all guns sold in MD within 3 years MUST
> have internal locking devices. He was demonstrating how easy and fast
> locking devices can be disabled, to show there was no reason to fight
> his proposals. Well, it took over a minute and a half, and with the
> help of someone else, to remove the lock (it was a magazine well lock).
>
> He was laughing up a storm. The NRA simply said your safely is no
> laughing matter. Tell me, would you like that lock on your carry gun?
Thanks for the info. No, I wouldn't use that kind of lock on my carry gun.
> > > What is being fought is mandatory "personalized" guns, mandatory
> > > storage requirements, etc. I don't need a trigger lock, I wouldn't
> > > use a trigger lock, I think they will create a danger that doesn't
> > > exist now. Too many people are going to think a trigger lock can be
> > > put on a loaded gun, that the gun can be left anywhere, and their
> > > kids will be safe. Some of those are going to wonder why their
> > > government approved trigger lock didn't keep their son from killing
> > > his little sister. Of course, the response will be more and more
> > > gun laws.
>
> > I'm sure a trigger lock is not a universal need.
>
> Yet various government agencies what to make it a universal requirement,
> a one-size-fits-all approach that will do nothing, except get a few more
> people killed because all they think is "Gee, Clinton says this trigger
> lock will save my children."
I wouldn't believe Clinton if he said my farts stink. I'd still sniff to
make sure.
Pagan
Pagan
> In article <ses35rk...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pagan" <pagan@#linkline.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Since there are many people out there who want to own guns and
> > > > refuse to teach their children how to safely operate them, I
> > > > support child safety locks.
>
> > > You know this...how?
>
> > By reading the paper and the news stories forwarded in police circles
> > detailing how children playing with guns get killed. I didn't make
> > this up. Wish I did.
>
> I think you did, unless you count 19 year old drug dealers shooting each
> other over street corners as "playing with guns" that is. The number of
> REAL kids accidentally killed each year ranks way down the list. I
> believe more children 5 and under are drowned in 5 gallon buckets than
> with guns.
True, the number of kids killed with guns is very low. I never said
otherwise.
> > > > It's smart to have one anyway.
>
> > > No, its dumb. If you are going to use a trigger lock, and use
> > > it CORRECTLY, then you have a trigger lock on an UNLOADED gun, and
> > > the ammo is stored elsewhere. Far better, that being the case, to
> > > keep the gun in a lock-box - you can also keep the cylinder/magazine
> > > with it and loaded.
>
> > Using my trigger lock doesn't require unloading the gun. It simply
> > blocks the trigger, preventing it from being pulled.
>
> I bought a trigger blocking type trigger lock a few years ago, put it on
> my S&W 686 (sold it a few years ago), and was able to cock the hammer
> and by pulling on the trigger lock, was able to release the hammer -
> meaning it could be fired. On a lever action rifle it was useless, for
> obvious reasons. Needless to say, the trigger lock found a place in my
> trashcan. BTW, if you read the instructions that came with the trigger
> lock, you would have seen that is says "DO NOT INSTALL ON A LOADED GUN."
I tested mine. It works.
<snip>
> A caual thief would take it, and with a hacksaw, have it off in a few
> minutes. You cannot be serious and say that a thief will look at a gun,
> and say "Gee, I'd steal that if it weren't for that damn trigger lock!"
Your probably right.
> > > In an airline approved gun case.
>
> > Your right about that. The trigger lock I was issued would also lock
> > the case, which was approved by the FAA.
>
> How does a trigger lock lock a case? Is your trigger lock a padlock?
The one I was issued is indeed a padlock. The idea is you put it behind the
trigger. We had to have to fly home after the academy. It works, but it
looks like shit and scratches the gun. I bought a Master trigger lock to
use on my weapon.
> > A trigger lock can be defeated, but it's not the easiest thing to do,
> > and it takes time.
>
> Assuming it will prevent the gun from being fired even when installed,
> about 5 minutes with a hacksaw will suffice.
It would take some time with my Master trigger lock.
Pagan
> > > Which happens far less than a kid getting killed playing in the
> > > family pool.
>
> > Same with mothers abusing their children. In the US, children are
> > most likely to die at the hands of their mothers. This doesn't mean
> > guns should not be kept away from children unskilled in their use, or
> > fences should be removed from pools.
>
> Nor is anyone mandating that mothers' hands be encased in thick, soft,
> padded gloves.
>
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>>>
>>Hmm, some of you folk don't seem to be very tolerant of mistakes.:-)
>>I think I prefer our more easy going lifestyle.
>>
>>—larryn
>>
>>"/ Simul Justus et Peccator / "
>
>Larry, think real hard about your definition of Mistake. In the case of the repo man getting
>shot...perhaps it was a mistake on his part.
1==> Agree. Doubt if he planned to get offed.:-)
> But so is checking your gas tank with a lit match.
>Exothermic reactions are often less tolerant of mistakes..
2==> Hm, dunno: Americans seem almost as volatile and unforgiving.
If I look into my gas tank with a match I may just get burned, not
killed.
><G>. Evidently the repo man did NOT use
>ordinate care in doing his job, and like the gas tank scenario... paid for it.
3==> Pretty high price for a mistake, though. Even in the US property
theft doesn't usually attract the death penalty.
>
>Keying a $1200 paint job, or stealing my lawn mower, is not a "Mistake".
4==> Maybe not, but is the inconvienence of filing an insurance claim
worth killing someone?
>
>Gunner
>
>http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/gunner
Lou Boyd
> Gunner:
> >Keying a $1200 paint job, or stealing my lawn mower, is not a "Mistake".
Larryn:
> 4==> Maybe not, but is the inconvienence of filing an insurance claim
> worth killing someone?
It's not the incovenience of filing the claim. People who buy insurance
on average pay more for that insurance than they get back in claims. If
that weren't the case insurance companies could not exist. Claims cause
rate increases. Eliminating the causes of damage claims is in the best
interest of all who are insured.
--
Lou Boyd
d'geezer
Exactly 2.3 seconds. I've timed it. 22 inch bolt cutter. Cops use them
sometimes, and of course so do criminals. Every trunk should hold one
for emergencies. Can take out a car door post the jaws can bracket.
Wonderful tools. Sorry `bout that.
>
> Pagan
>
> > > > Which happens far less than a kid getting killed playing in the
> > > > family pool.
> >
> > > Same with mothers abusing their children. In the US, children are
> > > most likely to die at the hands of their mothers. This doesn't mean
> > > guns should not be kept away from children unskilled in their use, or
> > > fences should be removed from pools.
Do you know how many people won't believe you? Except me of course. I
have access to the stats. Horrendous, but then it is the mothers with
the proximity and of course then the opportunity.
> >
> > Nor is anyone mandating that mothers' hands be encased in thick, soft,
> > padded gloves.
Nope, just advocating taking the kids from unfit mothers. Works some of
the time. Most of the time. Should be done to criminals with regard to
the tools they use in crimes...hey! It already is. Wonder why we need
even more gun laws?
> >
> > Jim
d'geezer
--
"We have a government that believes that an inauguration was a
coronation."
RD Thompson, 2000
Pagan
"d'geezer" <d'geezer@d'geezer.net> wrote in message
news:ZuBI4.932$rd.2...@nntp3.onemain.com...
<snip>
> > > > Same with mothers abusing their children. In the US, children are
> > > > most likely to die at the hands of their mothers. This doesn't mean
> > > > guns should not be kept away from children unskilled in their use,
or
> > > > fences should be removed from pools.
>
> Do you know how many people won't believe you? Except me of course. I
> have access to the stats. Horrendous, but then it is the mothers with
> the proximity and of course then the opportunity.
Would you be so kind as to post the stats? Perhaps my info is outdated.
Pagan
Noah Simoneaux
>>Keying a $1200 paint job, or stealing my lawn mower, is not a "Mistake".
>
>4==> Maybe not, but is the inconvienence of filing an insurance claim
>worth killing someone?
Someone should evaluate that question from the other side when they
decide to risk their life in order to take the vehicle. Is
repossessing this vehicle worth risking my life?
Noah Simoneaux
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<bo...@fairborn.dakotacom.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>
>
>> Gunner:
>
>> >Keying a $1200 paint job, or stealing my lawn mower, is not a "Mistake".
>
>Larryn:
>
>> 4==> Maybe not, but is the inconvienence of filing an insurance claim
>> worth killing someone?
>
>It's not the incovenience of filing the claim. People who buy insurance
>on average pay more for that insurance than they get back in claims. If
>that weren't the case insurance companies could not exist. Claims cause
>rate increases. Eliminating the causes of damage claims is in the best
>interest of all who are insured.
1==> Yes, Lou, most of us would accept that. However, lets assume
that you and I are in the US and are both insured by the same company.
Someone tries to scratch the paint job on your car, which might
involve a $500 or even a $1500 claim, depending on what you drive.
2==> Suppose that you shoot and kill the culprit, saving the
insurance company a $500 to $1,500 payout. How many cents, or
fractions of a cent, will I save on my next premium payment?
3==> How many policy holders are we talking about? For the sake of
argument, lets assume only 1,500 policy holders covering your $1,500
claim. At the most I save a dollar on my premium. Suppose I
consider a human life as worth more than a dollar?
4==> May I ask how much a human life is worth to you?