I may never "sharpen" a knife again (using a STeele)
Loren A. Coe
cooled 2"x8" wheel) worked fine, restored many edges over several
weeks. then, after talking my brother, who worked in a slaughter
house as a youth, i bot a decent steel (steele?).
i have yet to use the grinder again (for kitchen knives). today
was the real test, a couple of _really_ dull 6" cleavers that i missed
last year. not wanting to set up the grinder for just two edges
i tried just the steele. it did the job just fine. i just sliced
some onion with each of them. go figure, too soon old, too late
smart. --Loren
p.s. just fyi, for newbies, i have "played" with steeles for years,
never appreciating the results. there is some technique, and a decent
steel is required. prior (dismal) attempts were with chrome plated
(cheapie) models.
Ivan
have a butcher shop on our farm. We went from having our knives ground
often to keeping our own knives sharp with the diamond coated. (well that's
what they call it anyway....I doubt if there's diamond on it)
Ivan
"Loren A. Coe" <lc...@C1932201-A.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:45U0c.96296$Xp.428508@attbi_s54...
Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
>You probably bought one of those diamond coated steels. They're nice. We
>have a butcher shop on our farm. We went from having our knives ground
>often to keeping our own knives sharp with the diamond coated. (well that's
>what they call it anyway....I doubt if there's diamond on it)
You would probably be wrong. Minute industrial grit. And yes they work
amazingly well. For tools as well as knives. (Well, I have a
grindstone of the same stuff, and I use the little "steels" on
clippers etc.)
Give a couple to your wife as earrings. "Here dear. I bought you some
diamond earrings!" They _always_ know <G>
**************************************************** sorry
.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Spike....Spike? Hello?
Beecrofter
The old style steels were meant to straighten a turned edge and were
not for metal removal.
The new diamond ones are abrasive and remove metal.
2 different ways of operating
Rex B
|On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 01:33:58 -0600, "Ivan" <mr_jerk...@hotmail.com>
|vaguely proposed a theory
|......and in reply I say!:
|
|>You probably bought one of those diamond coated steels. They're nice. We
|>have a butcher shop on our farm. We went from having our knives ground
|>often to keeping our own knives sharp with the diamond coated. (well that's
|>what they call it anyway....I doubt if there's diamond on it)
|
|You would probably be wrong. Minute industrial grit. And yes they work
|amazingly well. For tools as well as knives. (Well, I have a
|grindstone of the same stuff, and I use the little "steels" on
|clippers etc.)
OK, I'm convinced, and I'm tired of dull kitchen knives.
Where does one buy a good steel, and how can you tell it's a good one?
Rex in Fort Worth
Loren A. Coe
yes, agreed. this is the old style, a Chicago 12", it may be stainless,
but i don't know. it is only 8" of working surface, the fine longitudenal
groves. these are sold seperately or with knife sets, made in China.
WalMart carries the sets, Kohls carries the sets and the steels.
if i were doing it again, i might be tempted for a nicer, longer one,
but this one is quite handy for the length of edges i have. eventaully,
i should end up with both. dunno about the diamond type, as you say, a
different deal altogther, a newbie could probably do some real damage
to an edge.
another tip for novices, _patience_ is the key. talking to a butcher
may help but you will see/get difference techniques for everyone you
ask. also, the edge condition determines whether a steel can restore
the edge and i advise to start looking at them under 10x or so and
learn to recognize a good edge that is just dull. these two cleavers
surprised me, i did look at them and they looked fairly nice, just
dull. good luck, --Loren
Ernie Leimkuhler
<lc...@C1932201-A.attbi.com> wrote:
I have 3 steels in a rack near my knives.
A diamond steel for actual sharpening.
A standard honing steel for regular maintenance.
And a "Butcher's" Steel, a mirror finished glass hard rod of high
carbon steel used to burnish the edge perfect.
Use all 3 in succession and beware the tomato that dares offend me.
Pep674
>OK, I'm convinced, and I'm tired of dull kitchen knives.
>Where does one buy a good steel, and how can you tell it's a good one?
AAguy at a county faair was selling a knife sharpener. Did damazing things
with a mortar hoe, rusty knives, etc. Suddenly a light flashed... Now at
garage sales if I find a rusty butcher knife, it'll soon be mine. That sort of
iron seems to take a good (not long lasting) edge (slices paper-a test). It
will also raise heck with a tomato.
Paul in AJ AZ
Ivan
"Ernie Leimkuhler" <er...@stagesmith.com> wrote in message
news:020320041201086586%er...@stagesmith.com...
How much life can we expect from a diamond steel?
Beecrofter
> >
>
> I have 3 steels in a rack near my knives.
> A diamond steel for actual sharpening.
> A standard honing steel for regular maintenance.
> And a "Butcher's" Steel, a mirror finished glass hard rod of high
> carbon steel used to burnish the edge perfect.
>
> Use all 3 in succession and beware the tomato that dares offend me.
After I started putting the final hone on customers knives with a
little green chromium oxide on a leather belt they can slice a tomato
so thin it only has one side!
Old Nick
<er...@stagesmith.com> vaguely proposed a theory
This is roughly what I was going to say
>
>I have 3 steels in a rack near my knives.
>A diamond steel for actual sharpening.
>A standard honing steel for regular maintenance.
>And a "Butcher's" Steel, a mirror finished glass hard rod of high
>carbon steel used to burnish the edge perfect.
>
>Use all 3 in succession and beware the tomato that dares offend me.
**************************************************** sorry
Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
I hate to start a bottomposttoppost argument. But if you are going to
bottom post, could do a _bit_ of snipping before your one-liner?
How often are you going to use it? Most of them are diamonds embeddded
in Nickel or other metal AFAIK. They last a long time. They make the
job so easy they are worth it. You can _feel_ them biting.
BTW. You don't need to get a greta long one. I use a little
rectangular thing about 3cm wide and 8 cm long. I bought 3 grades for
about $15.
>How much life can we expect from a diamond steel?
>
**************************************************** sorry
John D. Farr
> little green chromium oxide on a leather belt they can slice a tomato
> so thin it only has one side!
I use green stuff too. When I go to check a knife by shaving my arm, the
hairs jump off from fright.
Harry Conover
Excellent observation, saving me a lengthy post!
I steel my knives each time I use them, so they need sharpening only
every other year. Then too, I don't own a butcher shop. :-)
Thanks! :-)
Harry C.
Larry Jaques
brought forth from the murky depths:
>OK, I'm convinced, and I'm tired of dull kitchen knives.
>Where does one buy a good steel, and how can you tell it's a good one?
I use a DMT 600 grit diamond plate on both my wood/metalworking
tool blades and knives. That's it for the kitchen knives, as
they work better with a bit of bite. I ScarySharpen(tm) the
shop blades with 1000 and 1500 grit wetordry sandpaper, then
finish up with a strop.
.-.
Better Living Through Denial
---
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design
Ivan
> if you bottom post, do snip
Ernie Leimkuhler
I have had mine for 12 years and it stIn article
<1049rju...@corp.supernews.com>, Ivan <mr_jerk...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "Ernie Leimkuhler" <er...@stagesmith.com> wrote in message
> news:020320041201086586%er...@stagesmith.com...
> > In article <Kp51c.165037$jk2.606971@attbi_s53>, Loren A. Coe
> > <lc...@C1932201-A.attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Beecrofter <bam...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > > > "Loren A. Coe" <lc...@C1932201-A.attbi.com> wrote in message
snip
> > >
> > > another tip for novices, _patience_ is the key. talking to a butcher
> > > may help but you will see/get difference techniques for everyone you
> > > ask. also, the edge condition determines whether a steel can restore
> > > the edge and i advise to start looking at them under 10x or so and
> > > learn to recognize a good edge that is just dull. these two cleavers
> > > surprised me, i did look at them and they looked fairly nice, just
> > > dull. good luck, --Loren
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I have 3 steels in a rack near my knives.
> > A diamond steel for actual sharpening.
> > A standard honing steel for regular maintenance.
> > And a "Butcher's" Steel, a mirror finished glass hard rod of high
> > carbon steel used to burnish the edge perfect.
> >
> > Use all 3 in succession and beware the tomato that dares offend me.
>
> How much life can we expect from a diamond steel?
>
>
I have had mine for 12 years and it still works fine
Old Nick
Actually, the tomatoes have a problem. Isn't it the tomato that
_pleases_ you that will see the sharp edge? <G>
>Use all 3 in succession and beware the tomato that dares offend me.
**************************************************** sorry
Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
>Yup. :)
>> if you bottom post, do snip
>
**************************************************** sorry
yoyo...@netscape.net
>> The old style steels were meant to straighten a turned edge and were
>> not for metal removal.
Zoltan Malocsay had an excellent article on using lapidary equipment
for sharpening knives in Rock&Gem a few years back. Can't find it now,
but I seem to remember him likening using a steel to putting a "set"
into saw teeth. Said the steel pulled the tiny teeth created by
regular sharpening into alignment, which is why butchers were
constantly using their steels on thei working blades. Goos stuff;
maybe someone has a copy. Zoltan was generally as sharp as the knives
he wrote about in the magazine.
Martin H. Eastburn
From my experience, - my father-in-law's dad was a butcher - the steel is
1. long for a long slicing blade
2. isn't stainless steel.
3. is cut not stamped or rolled.
If you ever had a wood scraper - and know how to square the end and then burnish
it these thin slicing edges cut the wood nicely.
On a steel, the pattern is long sharp but hard and firm - not cutting sharp.
It shears metal off the knife blade with long arcing strokes.
My late father-in-law sharpened in two ways - blade away from him and slicing
away - Typically when he had to really take some metal off - due to a nick.
But the way he did most sharpening was sharp blade coming down on either sides
toward the hand that holds the handle. Nice to have a hand guard just in case
the metal breaks or jumps off the steel.
I think Steels were shaper cut - a machine like that - pulling the full length
cutting the slot. Likely a die pull. A movable gripping type to contour to the tip.
Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer old...@pacbell.net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
Gunner
using Crock Sticks of various types for most of t he knives on my person
or around the house.
If its really bad, Ill drag out one of the Lansky sharpening sets and
build a good edge, then finish with a crock stick
My carry Kukri ,which is very very old, will shave arm hairs using this
process. The Henkles (sp?) kitchen knives come out scary sharp
Gunner
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long
A.Gent
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:77eb40dtp4cr9jtqc...@4ax.com...
<...>
>
> Gunner
>
> The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty"
and "duty."
> Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may
possibly
> save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus
Long
Hey Gunner...
Isn't it time for a new sig?
I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and practised
incest.
Don't you think?
Cheers
Jeff
Tim Williams
news:4045bceb$0$4227$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and
> practised incest.
Oh, since when did Gunner care about any oddities or atrocities his sig
quotees ever did? He just picks what sounds good and accomplishes his
purpose...
Tim
--
"I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting
and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:77eb40dtp4cr9jtqc...@4ax.com...
>
> <...>
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty"
>and "duty."
>> Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may
>possibly
>> save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus
>Long
>
>Hey Gunner...
>Isn't it time for a new sig?
Ill dig something up.
>
>I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and practised
>incest.
>
>Don't you think?
>
>Cheers
>Jeff
>
You mean it wasnt constitutionally protected like same sex marraige?
Gunner
"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams
Gunner
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> wrote in message
>news:4045bceb$0$4227$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and
>> practised incest.
>
>Oh, since when did Gunner care about any oddities or atrocities his sig
>quotees ever did? He just picks what sounds good and accomplishes his
>purpose...
>
>Tim
Still molesting your little brother?
A.Gent
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:09:24 +1100, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
> wrote:
> >
> >I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and practised
> >incest.
> >
> >Don't you think?
> >
> >Cheers
> >Jeff
> >
> You mean it wasnt constitutionally protected like same sex marraige?
>
> Gunner
I'm sorry, I don't understand your riposte.
Are you equating incest with homosexuality?
Are you defending incest?
Never mind.
It doesn't matter.
Glad to see you've updated your sig.
Jeff
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:9tcd40pn271ipgfrj...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:09:24 +1100, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >I mean - its a bit sad quoting a fictional character who approved of and practised
>> >incest.
>> >
>> >Don't you think?
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> You mean it wasnt constitutionally protected like same sex marraige?
>>
>> Gunner
>
>
>I'm sorry, I don't understand your riposte.
Somehow Im not surprised.
>
>Are you equating incest with homosexuality?
Only in so far they are both Constitutionally protected.
>Are you defending incest?
Should I be?
>
>Never mind.
>It doesn't matter.
>
Indeed.
>Glad to see you've updated your sig.
>
>Jeff
Ill browse through the several dozen I have, until I find one that
pisses you off, then lock it in for a while.
"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African
Americans being the most prominent, who are disproportionately
invested in government jobs and in programs that government provides.
" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as
politically feasible, and use that money to buy as many of the
people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed
Leftist David Horowitz
>
A.Gent
> >Glad to see you've updated your sig.
> >
> >Jeff
>
> Ill browse through the several dozen I have, until I find one that
> pisses you off, then lock it in for a while.
>
OK.
I can help here.
I'm Australian, so anything about "Democrats" or "Republicans" is of no interest and
certainly won't rankle. "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
understand).
I share your interest in (old, big?) machinery, so that's an unfortunate area in
common.
Ummmm....
I know!
I approve of gun control.
The stricter the better.
You wouldn't have anything on *that* would you?
(A long shot, I know, but I am trying to help here.)
Jeff
P...@nowhere.net
like the way I'm living, plonk me.
Les
Tim Williams
> Still molesting your little brother?
OoooOOOOooo, Gunner flames back! (Although I would only call my post an
observation rather than a flame, but I guess that proves its validity.)
BTW, you got something wrong. I'm the little brother in this family. ;)
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
> understand).
Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...
Language is fun! :-)
-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:9dvd40ppld1ul88d5...@4ax.com...
>> >Glad to see you've updated your sig.
>> >
>> >Jeff
>>
>> Ill browse through the several dozen I have, until I find one that
>> pisses you off, then lock it in for a while.
>>
>
>OK.
>I can help here.
>I'm Australian, so anything about "Democrats" or "Republicans" is of no interest and
>certainly won't rankle. "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
>understand).
Of course. In the US, the terms are reversed. Liberals are socialists.
>I share your interest in (old, big?) machinery, so that's an unfortunate area in
>common.
Why unfortunate? Even great minds can differ on some issues. Its one
fo the spices of life. If we all shared the same likes/dislikes..it
would be a terrribly boring and tedious world.
>
>Ummmm....
>
>I know!
>
>I approve of gun control.
>The stricter the better.
>
>You wouldn't have anything on *that* would you?
>
>(A long shot, I know, but I am trying to help here.)
>
>Jeff
>
Hummm rummage rummage..lets see here....
Lets try this one
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"
Gunner
>
>
Gunner
<tih...@eunetnorge.no> wrote:
>"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> writes:
>
>> "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
>> understand).
>
>Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
>replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...
>
>Language is fun! :-)
>
>-tih
Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals
Why do libertarians sometimes call themselves classical liberals?
In the 19th century, the term "liberal" generally meant someone who
favored individual liberty and opposed the expansion of state power.
In Europe and in much of the rest of the world, it still means that.
But in America, the term "liberal" was adopted by people who favored
extensive government intervention in the economy -- people who
elsewhere in the world would have been called progressives, social
democrats, or socialists.
Meanwhile, "conservative" continued to refer to people who favored
the use of state power for the preservation of certain religious and
cultural practices. The original liberals were thus left without a
label. People who still cleave to the ideal of individual liberty in
all spheres of life, like the 19th century liberals, now usually call
themselves either libertarians or classical liberals.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html
What the heck is a libertarian?
I will offer three definitions:
1. The simple definition. A libertarian is someone who, in general,
supports government policies that favor individual liberty in all
matters, whether economic, personal, or social.
Libertarians are frequently characterized as "conservative on economic
issues and liberal on personal issues." That's not a bad definition,
but it's kind of like saying vodka is "half screwdriver and half white
Russian." It implies that libertarians are being inconsistent,
whereas in fact libertarianism is more consistent than either
conservatism or liberalism. I prefer to say, "Conservatives are
frequently libertarian on economic issues, and liberals are frequently
libertarian on personal issues." (I would also say that conservatives
are usually authoritarian on personal issues, and liberals are usually
authoritarian on economic issues.)
A list of policies that most libertarians support would include:
legalization of drugs, legalization of all consensual sexual acts
between consenting adults (including sodomy and prostitution),
abolition of government censorship in all its forms (including
restrictions on pornography), free trade, noninterventionist foreign
policy, abolition of rent control, abolition of the minimum wage,
abolition of farm and business subsidies, abolition of arts subsidies,
privatization of Social Security, abolition of welfare, and drastic
reduction of taxes.
For a decent indicator of whether you are a libertarian according to
the simple definition, take the World's Shortest Political Quiz.
2. The more complex, philosophical definition. A libertarian is
someone who, as a general rule, supports the non-aggression ethic (or
as some people call it, the non-aggression axiom, or NGA). The
non-aggression ethic holds, to quote David Boaz's Libertarianism: A
Primer, that "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the
person or property of anyone else."
Two phrases in this statement bear special emphasis. The first is
"initiation of aggression." Libertarians strongly support the right
of individuals to respond to aggression against them -- i.e., everyone
has the right of self defense. What libertarians oppose is the
initiation of force (or aggression) against others.
The second important phrase is "no one." Libertarians believe that no
means no. People do not acquire the right to initiate aggression
against others simply because they are agents of the state, or because
they get the majority of people to agree with them. The key issue is
not who uses aggression, but rather the purpose for which it is used.
Libertarians believe, for the most part, that aggression is only
justified if used to limit the initiation of aggression by others.
3. The crass political definition. A Libertarian (note the capital
L) is a member of the Libertarian Party, a national political party in
the United States. A libertarian and a Libertarian are not
necessarily the same thing, but in general, the LP advocates policies
that libertarians (small l) are likely to support.
The LP's official Statement of Principles says, "We hold that all
individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own
lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so
long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others
to live in whatever manner they choose." That's a pretty good a
statement of the motivating ideal behind libertarianism.
Ed Huntress
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:20:11 +0100, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> <tih...@eunetnorge.no> wrote:
>
> >"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> writes:
> >
> >> "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
> >> understand).
> >
> >Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
> >replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...
> >
> >Language is fun! :-)
> >
> >-tih
>
> Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals
Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in terms of
behavior. A libertarian is someone who opposes aggression against others,
unless they think the others may initiate aggression against them. This
opens the door for unlimited pre-emptive aggression, under the principle of
preventing pre-emptive aggression. <?>
A libertarian is someone who favors legalizing psychotropic drugs, until a
drug taker goes nuts behind the wheel of a car and starts running people
over, at which time a good libertarian will shoot them. <?>
Even simpler is their politics: A libertarian is someone who favors
individual liberty, which is why they vote for right-wing neo-fascists. <?>
Libertarians are very confused people. <g>
Ed Huntress
Brian
Brian
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message > >
Old Nick
theory
......and in reply I say!:
Not necessary. I agree with you. As I said, I did not want to tell
anyone where to insert anything. I plonked the other post, because (a)
they did not snip, and posted only a rather vapid one-liner. (b)they
replied smartarse to me (c) I did provide some ideas to to their
question which they completely ignored in their haste to be a
smartarse.
Anyway. Mind your own business <G>
>I will top post, bottom post and insert post as I see fit!! If you don't
>like the way I'm living, plonk me.
>
>
>Les
**************************************************** sorry
Gerald Miller
wrote:
>I approve of gun control.
>The stricter the better.
>
I most strongly agree, most automatic weapons absolutely demand a two
handed grip!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada
SteveB
> wrote:
>
> >I approve of gun control.
> >The stricter the better.
Gun control is being able to hit what you are shooting at. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Steve
Gunner
<tmor...@charter.net> wrote:
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:9ldd409m6dcq8ah0t...@4ax.com...
>> Still molesting your little brother?
>
>OoooOOOOooo, Gunner flames back! (Although I would only call my post an
>observation rather than a flame, but I guess that proves its validity.)
Id only call my post an observation as well. Seems to have gotten
your goat though.
>
>BTW, you got something wrong. I'm the little brother in this family. ;)
>
>Tim
Hummm..your the little brother? That explains it. In another day, you
would have been the cabin boy..and all that that job involved...
Gunner
Loren A. Coe
gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
> thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
> we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren
I know what you mean. All good threads seem to go bad.
I didn't even look at this thread until it had gone on so long that it just
*had* to be revealing some amazing facts about sharpening a knife. But when
I got here, what I found was Gunner sharpening his sword. <g>
Ed Huntress
Tim Williams
news:acT1c.461903$I06.5240340@attbi_s01...
> thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
> we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren
Gnaw, I don't think I've seen many threads stay on topic without arguing for
more than the 15 post levels seen at this particular point.
A.Gent
>
> Of course. In the US, the terms are reversed. Liberals are socialists.
Hehehe
That sounds so silly.
> Hummm rummage rummage..lets see here....
>
> Lets try this one
>
> "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
> fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"
>
> Gunner
Hey!
That's a good'un.
Just a few edits and it becomes:
> "Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
> lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."
Jeff
A.Gent
"Gerald Miller" <grmi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:a8jf409lk1i6m9nk5...@4ax.com...
LOL!
Good response.
Gunner
<lc...@C1932201-A.attbi.com> wrote:
>Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
>thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
>we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren
>
Cant blame this one on me, this time.
Gunner
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
Gunner
No..you found me mentioning that I use a ceramic crock stick in lue of
a steel. Another posted pushed the magic button.
Gunner
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
> Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in
> terms of behavior.
Gotta say, Ed, I liked Gunner's version much better. :-)
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:0e1f409ssmgcd1q2h...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Of course. In the US, the terms are reversed. Liberals are socialists.
>
>Hehehe
>That sounds so silly.
But true nontheless. We can thank the Lefties for the redefiniton.
They are busy at work again, since Liberal now has many negative
connotations. The new buzz word they use...is Progressive.
>
>> Hummm rummage rummage..lets see here....
>>
>> Lets try this one
>>
>> "Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
>> fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Hey!
>That's a good'un.
>
>Just a few edits and it becomes:
>
>
>> "Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
>> lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."
And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"
Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
delight in the exercise.... Shrug.
Gunner
>
>
>Jeff
A.Gent
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:06:17 +1100, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> "Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
> >> lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."
>
> And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"
A *few* edits?
There's only one letter in common, and that's in the wrong place.
Poor analogy, Gunner. More "anal" than "Gee!"
Nahhhhh.
>
> Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
> delight in the exercise.... Shrug.
Shrug away.
It'll help you loosen up, and relieve some of your oh-so-obvious tension.
But don't you think that 110lb Granny is probably *less* likely to be packing heat
than a criminally-minded 19 y.o.?
"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns", (as you would probably say)
*but*
if anyone can get guns down at the local WalMart, then what makes you think that
Granny will and 19 y.o. won't?
You don't think background checks would stop a naughty 19 y.o. do you?
=================
Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)
Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
and so on) than here and now?
Just wondering....
Jeff
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:nlgg409c8vf1f2av2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:06:17 +1100, "A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> "Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
>> >> lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."
>>
>> And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"
>
>A *few* edits?
>There's only one letter in common, and that's in the wrong place.
>Poor analogy, Gunner. More "anal" than "Gee!"
>
>Nahhhhh.
>
>>
>> Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
>> delight in the exercise.... Shrug.
>
>Shrug away.
>
>It'll help you loosen up, and relieve some of your oh-so-obvious tension.
>
>But don't you think that 110lb Granny is probably *less* likely to be packing heat
>than a criminally-minded 19 y.o.?
>
Its largely dependant on which part of the US you are referring to,
and then in large part because its illegal for either party to carry
without a permit. Which granny will generally follow..but there is no
such reluctance on the part of the kid. Now as to having Granny
keeping a shotgun or handgun around the house..Id say there are
millions of such. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
blowing the 19 yr old pukes shit away.
>"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns", (as you would probably say)
>*but*
>if anyone can get guns down at the local WalMart, then what makes you think that
>Granny will and 19 y.o. won't?
First you have to be 21 to purchase a firearm at Walmart, so the 19yr
old cannot do so legally. Secondly most amateur bad guys in this age
range tend to rely on their size and strength (its a psychological
thing) when confronting Granny. Which often leads to 19 yr olds being
killed or wounded in the commission of a crime, by Granny.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43
In fact, a good many women are now arming themselves, both at home and
on the street. Women getting CCW permits is at an all time high.
And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
already low crime rate.
Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
themselves?
As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .
Gunner
>
>You don't think background checks would stop a naughty 19 y.o. do you?
>
>=================
>
>Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)
>
>Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
>and so on) than here and now?
>
>Just wondering....
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
A.Gent
>.. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
> blowing the 19 yr old pukes shit away.
US news reports seem to feature lots of folk getting blown away - *some* of them
justifiably, it would seem.
> As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
> against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
> so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .
Sorry.
I'll have to shrug and whimper "what if". I don't collect broadcast anecdotes. I
leave that to others.
You have posted previously about the desirability of self-imposed morality, as
opposed to morality imposed by the barrel of a gun. (That was you, wasn't it?) Such
a society is certainly preferable. I just don't fancy the concept of everyone having
to go everywhere (including to bed) armed to the teeth.
Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:v6jg409eos7e1a4cu...@4ax.com...
>
>>.. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
>> blowing the 19 yr old pukes shit away.
>
>US news reports seem to feature lots of folk getting blown away - *some* of them
>justifiably, it would seem.
Indeed. As for those unjustifiably..it tends to be minority males
between the ages of 13-24 doing most of the killing and dying, often
in acts of tribal warfare. As occurs in the UK and Oz, etc. Far more
people die by knife, blunt instrument etc etc. Factors that would
occur even in the absence of firearms..and the world stats are there
to prove it, given the murder rates in many countries where guns are
outlawed. In fact..its members of those countries that live in the US
that tend to bring their homicidal tendencies with them. Mexico is a
notable example.
>
>
>> As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
>> against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
>> so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .
>
>Sorry.
>I'll have to shrug and whimper "what if". I don't collect broadcast anecdotes. I
>leave that to others.
>
Excellent. Honesty is a good start.
>You have posted previously about the desirability of self-imposed morality, as
>opposed to morality imposed by the barrel of a gun. (That was you, wasn't it?) Such
>a society is certainly preferable. I just don't fancy the concept of everyone having
>to go everywhere (including to bed) armed to the teeth.
One never has to go anywhere armed to the teeth. Its a personal
decision. Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
accident are very small, but I do non the less.
I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
times. In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
and or others.
So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?
>
>Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.
>
Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
of its foundation documents.
Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.
Gunner
>
>> >Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)
>> >
>> >Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
>> >and so on) than here and now?
>> >
>> >Just wondering....
>> >
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
Ed Huntress
news:86n06ve...@athene.i.eunet.no...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in
> > terms of behavior.
>
> Gotta say, Ed, I liked Gunner's version much better. :-)
Yeah, his definition makes you want to hum patriotic songs through your
nose. d8-)
Ed Huntress
A.Gent
> Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
> motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
> accident are very small, but I do non the less.
Why?
Don't you drive very much?
(You do realise that *no-one* admits to being a dangerous driver... and accidents
are *always* caused by "the other guy".)
> I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
> times.
Deary me.
I should mention that in a longer time-frame than that, I've never felt the need to
produce or display a CCW. I've been a cab driver, a shop assistant, a truck driver,
a delivery person amongst other potentially "hazardous" occupations, and I haven't
ever hesitated to go anywhere at any time in this country for the sake of personal
safety.
You must live in a very dangerous country.
> ... In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
> But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
> one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
> cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
> others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
> myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
> and or others.
Land of the free, home of the brave.
Don't tell me stories like this, Gunner.
I like Americans. I'd love to visit your shores (the Smithsonian, the Cape for a
launch, Niagara, Yellowstone... sighhh) but you're doing a good job of frightening me
out of it. Give me crocodiles and funnelweb spiders any day.
>
> So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?
Another crook analogy. Seat belts are defensive. Can't be offensive (unless you
strangle someone with one.)
> >
> >Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.
> >
> Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
> below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
> possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
> and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
> cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
> for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
> live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
> use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
> of its foundation documents.
And yet you've been in real fear of your life five times (at least?).
Do you provoke trouble?
(I mean in real life, not on Usenet.)
>
> Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
> and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
> having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.
Bahhhhhhhhh
Humbug.
Anyways, keep shrugging. I can sense that tension diminishing already.
>
> Gunner
> >
> >> >Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)
> >> >
> >> >Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and
"Shane"
> >> >and so on) than here and now?
> >> >
> >> >Just wondering....
> >> >
> >
> >
Jeff
(still wondering)
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:cdog40lt7j5cfl624...@4ax.com...
>
>> Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
>> motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
>> accident are very small, but I do non the less.
>
>Why?
>Don't you drive very much?
>(You do realise that *no-one* admits to being a dangerous driver... and accidents
>are *always* caused by "the other guy".)
>
I drive about 65,000 miles a year. Been doing so for many years. Im a
defensive driver, and have actually been to school for defensive
driving, albeit many years ago.
>
>
>> I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
>> times.
>
>Deary me.
>I should mention that in a longer time-frame than that, I've never felt the need to
>produce or display a CCW. I've been a cab driver, a shop assistant, a truck driver,
>a delivery person amongst other potentially "hazardous" occupations, and I haven't
>ever hesitated to go anywhere at any time in this country for the sake of personal
>safety.
I can think of a number of places in Sydney that Id not like to take
walkabout in, also Kimberly, Pilbara, Kalgoorlie. In fact..the first
place Id ever been attacked by a group, was in 1971 in Sydney.
Fortunatly my mates came to my rescue. Your lads made a rather poor
choice of victims when they ignored that Ranger scroll on the shoulder
patchs. Shrug. I suspect they all lived, though it was great fun.
>
>You must live in a very dangerous country.
Indeed parts of it can be. Just like Oz.
>
>
>> ... In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
>> But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
>> one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
>> cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
>> others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
>> myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
>> and or others.
>
>Land of the free, home of the brave.
Indeed.
>Don't tell me stories like this, Gunner.
Why?
>I like Americans. I'd love to visit your shores (the Smithsonian, the Cape for a
>launch, Niagara, Yellowstone... sighhh) but you're doing a good job of frightening me
>out of it. Give me crocodiles and funnelweb spiders any day.
Good for you. Id like to see Ayers Rock again, and of course sample
more of your sheilas hospitality. Both singly and in group. My
memories are fond ones. Dont worry too much about crime, as our crime
rate is falling rapidly, while yours is rising, so you may be safer
here in the US than at home. I know a goodly number of Aussie Ex-pats
living here quite happily. Though..I do know more British Ex-pats, and
you know what THEIR home country crime rates are..sigh..poor bastards.
>
>>
>> So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?
>
>Another crook analogy. Seat belts are defensive. Can't be offensive (unless you
>strangle someone with one.)
Hand guns are defensive also. A very poor choice for offense.
Generally a handgun is the means by which you use to get to a rifle.
Any tool can be used offensively. One should note that people have
been dying from kitchen knives, blunt objects, sashweights, tire
irons, etc etc for a very long time, so by your standards, a hammer is
an offensive weapon?
>
>
>> >
>> >Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.
>> >
>> Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
>> below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
>> possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
>> and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
>> cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
>> for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
>> live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
>> use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
>> of its foundation documents.
>
>And yet you've been in real fear of your life five times (at least?).
Having been a police officer, and in RVN (none of which were counted
in the 5 times stats, Ive been in fear for my life many times. There
are risks in life, for which I take precautions. Fire extinguishers
(btw..I know at least one murder by fire extinguisher), smoke
detectors, safety glasses, seat belts, motorcycle helmets and
leathers... the usual. Shrug. Having a firearm at hand when servicing
machine tools at 1am in East Los Angeles is simply another protective
measure.
>Do you provoke trouble?
Hardly. A number of folks here on this newsgroup know me well enough,
and Id imagine that most would tell you that Im just a big old
harmless fuzzball. And when bad situations happen, I generally tend to
back away. However..unless you live in a cave somewhere, Im sure you
have encountered those that wished to press the issue. I seldom worry
about a criminal act directed at me specificly, but those "to whom it
may concern" crimes are the bothersome ones.
I do tend to go where I wish, when I wish, rather than huddling in
fear though, and some of those places may not be for the more gentile.
However.. none of those 5 circumstances were in "bad places", as those
in bad places are street wise enough to understand that some people
are not to be attacked. At least if they are not drunk or strung out
on drugs...they can recognize this. shrug. Im told that I have a
certain "street presense" that can be a warning sign for the more
street wise. Unfortunatly..those are not the types that I worry about.
I should also mention that I indicated that no shots were fired, no
one was harmed overly much given the situations. If I were the type to
provoke trouble..such would not have been the case. In fact, I was
soundly chastized by the police in two of those occasions for NOT
shooting the bad guys, as it would have ended some long term criminal
careers and removed some very bad people from both the street and the
gene pool. But then I do value human life, and having taken far more
than my share of them in RVN and as a police officer, tend to not
take a life without extreme provication. The "3 AM parade" is not one
I care to add to.
>(I mean in real life, not on Usenet.)
See above.
>
>>
>> Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
>> and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
>> having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.
>
>
>Bahhhhhhhhh
>Humbug.
So your government allows you to keep a handgun close by for self
defense? How about a decent self loading rifle?
>
>Anyways, keep shrugging. I can sense that tension diminishing already.
Tension? You have a tension problem? Take care of that..it can have
long term health problems.
Btw..if you ever decide to visit the States, Id be happy to buy you a
cup of coffee, and show you my shop, as well as give you some insiders
places to visit. Im rather widely traveled, and as I indicated..tend
to go off the beaten path.
Gunner
Ivan
"Old Nick" <nsnf...@idodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:6f8a40p6bnothf30s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:28:47 -0600, "Ivan" <mr_jerk...@hotmail.com>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
>
> bottom post, could do a _bit_ of snipping before your one-liner?
Yup, can do! ;)
>
> How often are you going to use it?
Approximately 60 hogs, and 10 beef a year....butchered, cut and wrapped. Or
were you implying that I should ask myself that question. I wasn't sure if
you wanted a direct answer to that.
>Most of them are diamonds embeddded
> in Nickel or other metal AFAIK. They last a long time.
Good. That's good to know.
>They make the
> job so easy they are worth it. You can _feel_ them biting.
Yes you sure can feel them biting
> BTW. You don't need to get a greta long one. I use a little
> rectangular thing about 3cm wide and 8 cm long. I bought 3 grades for
> about $15.
Okay, thanks.
Ivan
>
> >How much life can we expect from a diamond steel?
A.Gent
> Btw..if you ever decide to visit the States, Id be happy to buy you a
> cup of coffee, and show you my shop, as well as give you some insiders
> places to visit. Im rather widely traveled, and as I indicated..tend
> to go off the beaten path.
>
> Gunner
Thanks Gunner.
..and reciprocated, here in Sydney. (dinkum)
Jeff
Loren A. Coe
> Pep674 wrote:
>> .....
>> AAguy at a county faair was selling a knife sharpener. Did damazing things
>> with a mortar hoe, rusty knives, etc. Suddenly a light flashed... Now at
>> garage sales if I find a rusty butcher knife, it'll soon be mine. That sort of
>> iron seems to take a good (not long lasting) edge (slices paper-a test). It
>> will also raise heck with a tomato.
>> Paul in AJ AZ
> From my experience, - my father-in-law's dad was a butcher - the steel is
> 1. long for a long slicing blade
> 2. isn't stainless steel.
> 3. is cut not stamped or rolled.
> If you ever had a wood scraper - and know how to square the end and then burnish
> it these thin slicing edges cut the wood nicely.
> On a steel, the pattern is long sharp but hard and firm - not cutting sharp.
> It shears metal off the knife blade with long arcing strokes.
> My late father-in-law sharpened in two ways - blade away from him and slicing
> away - Typically when he had to really take some metal off - due to a nick.
> But the way he did most sharpening was sharp blade coming down on either sides
> toward the hand that holds the handle. Nice to have a hand guard just in case
> the metal breaks or jumps off the steel.
with no guard, i have settled on edge-away, stroke-away. my steel is too
short for me to stroke toward the handle with the edge away which would be
fairly safe, otherwise. i was doing edge and stroke to handle until my
brother said either direction works fine. guess what? he's right. i still
occaisionally reverse, just to prove it to myself, again.
it is counter intuitive, tho, to this amateur since you are supposedly
only "straightening the bead" with a steel. seems like heel-away, stroke-
away would be ideal for that. --Loren
> I think Steels were shaper cut - a machine like that - pulling the full length
> cutting the slot. Likely a die pull. A movable gripping type to contour to the tip.
> Martin
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@lightspeed.net> from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
>armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
>already low crime rate.
>
>Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
>why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
>themselves?
the gym working out, in order to engage and prevail at hand to hand combat?
I've a friend I'll call Dwight, who is 6 foot something of bad attitude, a
rugby player, an hard style martial art fighter, a practitioner of the
Philippine stick fighting school and a generally bad ass kind of guy. I once
asked him about all this hand to hand prowess, when he regularly carries at
least one gun. His answer was on the lines of "That for when IO can't get to a
gun quick enough. Besides, I might hurt myself that way." Not to mention
messing up his garments.
Firearms, modern labor saving devices which enables those not into physical
violence to prevail against those so inclined, with a minimum of fuss and
bother.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
Mike Patterson
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>A city wide blackout at Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:00:04 GMT did not prevent Gunner
><gun...@lightspeed.net> from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>
>>And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
>>armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
>>already low crime rate.
>>
>>Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
>>why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
>>themselves?
>
> And why demand that those who have other priorities must spend much time at
>the gym working out, in order to engage and prevail at hand to hand combat?
>
> I've a friend I'll call Dwight, who is 6 foot something of bad attitude, a
>rugby player, an hard style martial art fighter, a practitioner of the
>Philippine stick fighting school and a generally bad ass kind of guy. I once
>asked him about all this hand to hand prowess, when he regularly carries at
>least one gun. His answer was on the lines of "That for when IO can't get to a
>gun quick enough. Besides, I might hurt myself that way." Not to mention
>messing up his garments.
>
> Firearms, modern labor saving devices which enables those not into physical
>violence to prevail against those so inclined, with a minimum of fuss and
>bother.
>
>
>tschus
>pyotr
I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.
His theory is that as big and built as he is, if someone attacks him,
they are deadly serious and maybe nuts. He -needs- the most powerful
gun he can conceal.
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
Old Nick
<mike...@the-patterson-family.com> vaguely proposed a theory
>I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
>enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.
and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.
Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like shit
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the bastards carry guns anyway,
according to you!
I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.
I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.
I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.
If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.
Jon Anderson
> Many people who have survived physical attacks of
> some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.
Many vicious punks would be dead now if their victims had been armed.
> In fact I would probably point the gun, get it taken off me by
> the bad-ass martial arts freak, and be shot with it.
Then most assuredly, you have no business carrying one for self defense.
At least you are smart enough to recognize this. Indecisive citizens
getting shot with their own guns make bad press for the rest of us.
Jon
GaryH82012
>>I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
>>enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.
>
>and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
>compltely.
What is it about the friend's description that warrants "agro arsehole"?
Carrying a gun? That doesn't necessarily make one agressive. Being a
bodybuilder/martial artist? I've known many of those, and literally none of the
truly proficient ones were more inclined than others to resort to violence.
Probably less. Carrying guns, learning martial arts, bodybuilding, these are
all practiced by some pretty decent people, as well as a few who aren't. For
the decent people, all three of these practices require a pretty high level of
discipline. Just my two dollars worth. (Can't find symbol for "cents" on my
keyboard).
Gary Hastings
Dan Caster
can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
chance of wolves, etc.
But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.
Dan
Old Nick <nsnf...@idodo.net.au> wrote in message
>
Gunner
wrote:
>
>If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
>slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
>because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
>point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
>and be shot with it.
Then you should not have a firearm.
A firearm is never presented without the clear idea that it may be used
in the next few seconds. Its not to be used as a threat, or as a tool of
argument.
If the situation is not important enough that the death or life long
maiming of someone is absolutely positively required..it should never
be presented.
Deadly force, be it a gun, a blade, an Escrima stick, accordian or
boomarang is only employed if one has reasonable cause to believe that
your life or the life of another is in immediate danger.
If you live in a world filled exclusivly with martial arts bad guys,
then simply learn how to retain that weapon. If faced with a martial
arts bad guy, you simply shoot him. No questions, no waffling, no
farting around, no second guessing.
If you are not willing to protect yourself, your family or your
community from evil, then simply pray they kill you in as humane a
fashion as possible. And pray they kill the women before raping them.
Watching them rape them before killing them is a bit tough to watch.
When carrying a deadly weapon, there is no maybes. No "maybe he wont
hurt me/us", no "Maybe he will settle for just hurting me/us just a
little bit".
You have to make the Reasonable Man determination whether or not your
assailent is a clear and immediate threat to your life or the life of
another. If so. Shoot/stab/cut/bash him. NOW!!.
If no such threat existst..retreat..
Do not attempt to plead, argue, or engage your assailent in
conversation. If an immediate threat exists, end it NOW!.
If you present your weapon, and the assailent stops his attack, he is no
longer an immediate threat. Dont shoot him.
Its all quite simple.
Retreat if given the opportunity. If not. Shoot to stop the attack as
fast as possible. You are not shooting to kill, but only to stop. If he
dies as a result, that was the result of his attack, not as a result of
your act of self defense. If he didnt attack, he wouldnt have been
hurt.
If one engages in an activity that may result in the death or injury of
another by the act itself, then the consequences are all on the head of
the actor..
Gunner
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long
Gunner
>Pistols are what you carry when you don't expect to need a gun. You
>can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
>way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
>which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
>to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
>chance of wolves, etc.
>
>But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
>protection.
>
> Dan
Depends on where you live or work. shrug
Gunner
>
>
>
>Old Nick <nsnf...@idodo.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
>> average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
>> range, and be easily concealed.
>>
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Bray Haven
>range, and be easily concealed.
>
>I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
>bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
>from getting guns.
I can see you don't know much about guns or "bad people". A good example is
Jamaica. A very tough place to "get a gun". They have what they call "gun
court" where even possesion of a single bullet results in indefinite detention
with no trial. (assume this is still the case) Virtually everyone there in the
countryside has guns. Shootouts are quite common. BTW, there are a lot of
good, legitimate sporting uses for sidearms besides "shooting people at close
range".
Greg Sefton
wm...@remove_thiscitlink.net
wrote:
>On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, dca...@krl.org (Dan Caster) wrote:
>>
>>But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
>>protection.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Depends on where you live or work. shrug
>
>Gunner
You might try moving. Just don't leave the boogeyman your forwarding
address.
Wayne
Bray Haven
>fast as possible. You are not shooting to kill, but only to stop.
Dead thugs make poor witnesses :o). Only shoot to stop the attack, but be sure
to expend all remaining rounds in the effort.
Greg Sefton
Mike Patterson
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
><mike...@the-patterson-family.com> vaguely proposed a theory
>......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
>>enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.
>
>and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
>compltely.
>
Since you appear to enjoy calling names, I'll reply in kind, dipshit.
The friend I descibed is one of the nicest, most reasonable people
you'd ever meet, with the possible exception of your white-coated
attendents who apparenty failed to bring your medication today.
>Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like shit
>to me....unless it's to protect myself against
>beatup-freaks........and hey! the bastards carry guns anyway,
>according to you!
I have the feeling that the grooves in your brain are so treadworn
that anything and everything "sounds like shit" to you. What makes you
think my friend is a "beatup-freak"? He's been in martial arts since
he was a small child, he's a volunteer fireman, he coaches a soccer
team for 12 year olds.
>
>I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
>made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
>In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
>that would not have been a messy business in many ways.
>
So everyone in the universe should be forced to live their lives based
on two of your anecdotal experiences?
I got one for you. One night in downtown Atlanta I was stopped at a
traffic light after work when 2 urban outdoorsmen decided to rob me.
One went down the passenger side of my van trying door handles while
the other came up to my window and reared back with a brick to throw
through the window into my face. I had a .38 revolver with me (I
worked on ATM machines back then) and all I had to do was lift the gun
into view. The one with the brick dropped it and yelled "he gots a
gun!" then ran away. His buddy beat him to the alley.
Note that I never even had to put my finger on the trigger. No dead,
no wounded. A bad case of the shakes afterward, but no blood.
In this case if I had -not- had a gun the outcome would "have been a
messy business in many ways".
My wife & children might disagree that Daddy should be dead or hurt
because it terrifies you that he had the means to defend himself from
predators.
>I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
>average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
>range, and be easily concealed.
I am convinced that you are both ignorant and offensive.
A sidearm is manufactured for only one purpose, to allow a person to
defend themselves from violent criminals. (Excepting the military of
course.)
Yes it has the potential for misuse, but so does virtually anything
and everything made by the human race. I came close to being seriously
hurt or killed with a brick.
>.
>I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
>bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
>from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
>some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.
And many more people have survived attacks because -they- had a gun.
The statistics are out there on the web if you look for them. I used
to cite them in such discussions as this, but I finally learned that
most people who take your position aren't interested in the facts on
this subject, only their fears.
>
>If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
>slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
>because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
>point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
>and be shot with it.
Quite possibly you are correct, and your recognition of your own
values/qualities is commendable. The question remains, why should -I-
(or my wife, son, or daughter) have to be hurt or killed because -you-
feel that -you- are not able to use a weapon in defense wisely?
>**************************************************** sorry
>
>.........no I'm not!
>remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>Spike....Spike? Hello?
Mike Patterson
Henry Bibb
"Mike Patterson" <mike...@the-patterson-family.com> wrote in message
news:kp6u401f0khpmsbvf...@4ax.com...
I'm going to offer a small theory here that I think is relevant to this
discussion. I note that one of the posters in this thread appears to
reside outside the US, as is frequently the case in firearm-related
discussions on Usenet.
Let me offer the theory that those living outside the States really
can't appreciate the utter mess our legal system has descended
into, wherein known violent criminals are routinely released early
to make way for those who have been incarcerated for long terms
without possibility of parole because of our out-of-control "War
on Drugs". It's truly a bizzare situation, when murderers, etc. are
released early from prison, while those who have been accused
of non-violent drug offenses are incarcerated for disproportionally
long terms. Couple this with a juvenile justice system which seems
to provide nothing more than a revolving door for kids who commit
ever-more serious crimes, and I think those of us living in this
morass have a very different world view than those outside.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Australia's penal system
operates this way, no?
I'm not really trying to prolong this discussion, nor steer it off in a
different direction, but I urge the participants to take a moment
and reflect on the differences in their several societies.
HB
Abrasha
>
> On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, dca...@krl.org (Dan Caster) wrote:
>
> >Pistols are what you carry when you don't expect to need a gun. You
> >can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
> >way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
> >which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
> >to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
> >chance of wolves, etc.
> >
> >But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
> >protection.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Depends on where you live or work. shrug
>
> Gunner
>
He said "most of us".
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
pyotr filipivich
>>protection.
>>
>> Dan
>
>Depends on where you live or work. shrug
And like I said - a pistol is a modern labor saving device for
self-defense. After all, it is much less "work" to dissuade someone from
attacking you with a pistol or other firearm, than by having to use hand to
hand physical combat techniques.
But hey, if the ninnies want to cower in their inability to ignore the
psychic emanations from the inanimate objects - that's their problem.
pyotr filipivich
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
><mike...@the-patterson-family.com> vaguely proposed a theory
>......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>>I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
>>enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.
And boldly leaping to an unwarranted conclusion "Old Nick" [funny nom du
net that, one of the moniker for Satan, but we'll let that slide] Nick
<nsnf...@idodo.net.au> from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking leads with his
face and replies:
>
>and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
>compltely.
Quiet some conclusion you leapt to there old sock. Your major form of
exercise? Or do you also run in circles? Do you understand that if you
advocate the abolition of firearms, you are calling for a return to the Glory
Days of Old, when Might Made Right and to the Victor went the Spoils?
>
>Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like shit
>to me....unless it's to protect myself against
>beatup-freaks........and hey! the bastards carry guns anyway,
>according to you!
Why don't you have a nice lie down and call Nurse. I'm sure she can bring
you more of the pills which make the little voices go away.
>
>I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
>made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
>In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
>that would not have been a messy business in many ways.
>
>I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
>average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
>range, and be easily concealed.
And this is a problem why? I realize that saving your miserable life is a
waste of time or energy, but no everyone is so lacking in socially redeeming
qualities.
>I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
>bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
>from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
>some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.
Ah, here we have The Major Mistake in Logic. If there were no guns, then
there would be no crime. I suppose it never occurred to you that people
inclined towards physical violence do not necessarily _need_ a gun to commit
violence upon ones person? In simple English: thugs can beat you to death
without a gun. They don't need one, especially if you don't have one. But you
are going to be hard pressed to prevent that unless you too are inclined
towards physical violence, be that "martial arts" or ordinary brawling. Or you
could just stay in shape to be able to outrun them.
Do you grasp the concept? Guns are a modern labor saving technology -
crafted from machined metal [ob-metal-working-content] . They make it possible
for someone not "into" hand to hand combat to avoid such a situation. You,
apparently, would rather risk personal injury with the old fashioned labor
intensive means of self defense, other wise known as going in harms way and
within reach of someone intent on hurting you. AKA "leading with your face."
>If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
>slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
Well, only you would know about your slowness. But you also make the
assumption that if you are unarmed, he is likewise going to be unarmed. But
what you fail to comprehend is that if you are unarmed, _he_ doesn't need a
gun. He can use old fashioned, labor intensive methods like stabbing or
clubbing you, or if that is too 'modern' can just punch and kick you into bad
health.
Of course, you are free to defend yourself with any antiquated method, like
running, or
>because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
>point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
>and be shot with it.
Good enough reason for you not to carry or even consider having a gun.
Also enough reason for you to not own a car, steak knives, sporks, fire
extinguisher, jump ropes, beer steins, precious metals, common metals, fire
wood, sticks, twigs or small stones as commonly found in a brook.
Definitely enough reason to keep you out of a machine shop (more obligatory
metal working content), you might hurt yourself on all the modern labor saving
devices like mills, lathes and various cutting implements.
>**************************************************** sorry
>
>.........no I'm not!
Oh, you are a sorry lot, that is for certain. To bad for you the 12th
century passed you by and has left you wistful for the days when Norman Knights
would trample your Saxon peasant face into the muck, and you felt all was well
with the world.
Someday, you really must look into the good things the modern world has to
offer. Good food, clean clothes, dental hygiene, and labor saving devices
which allow you to spend your life in something other than drudgery.
pyotr filipivich
><tih...@eunetnorge.no> wrote:
>
>>"A.Gent" <still....@spam.bots> writes:
>>
>>> "Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
>>> understand).
>>
>>Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
>>replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...
>>
>>Language is fun! :-)
>>
>>-tih
>
>Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
>http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals
>
>Why do libertarians sometimes call themselves classical liberals?
>In the 19th century, the term "liberal" generally meant someone who
>favored individual liberty and opposed the expansion of state power.
>In Europe and in much of the rest of the world, it still means that.
>
> But in America, the term "liberal" was adopted by people who favored
>extensive government intervention in the economy -- people who
>elsewhere in the world would have been called progressives, social
>democrats, or socialists.
>
> Meanwhile, "conservative" continued to refer to people who favored
>the use of state power for the preservation of certain religious and
>cultural practices. The original liberals were thus left without a
>label. People who still cleave to the ideal of individual liberty in
>all spheres of life, like the 19th century liberals, now usually call
>themselves either libertarians or classical liberals.
In my humble observation on the political scene, the "conservatives" who
want to use Government Force to enforce their version of morality are merely
those realists who recognized back in the 60s and 70s that "moral" decisions
were going to be dictated from the Capital, and it behooved them to get Their
People elected in order to make sure the Correct Polices were implemented.
And the "liberals" have discovered that it sucks to be on the outside looking
in while Important Decisions are being made.
And having lost the legislature, they've run out of patience and are hoping
to get their utopian plans implemented by judicial fiat.
I guess they haven't figured out that if one judge can set a law aside, so
can another.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them
Nick Hull
pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In my humble observation on the political scene, the "conservatives" who
> want to use Government Force to enforce their version of morality are merely
> those realists who recognized back in the 60s and 70s that "moral" decisions
> were going to be dictated from the Capital, and it behooved them to get Their
> People elected in order to make sure the Correct Polices were implemented.
> And the "liberals" have discovered that it sucks to be on the outside looking
> in while Important Decisions are being made.
This usurping of our freedoms will inevitably lead to civil war where
votes are counted in bullets. I have no idea when this will happen, but
history is pretty clear that ALL governments end in civil war or
invasion./
--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
Gunner
Its unfortunate that good paying jobs are not available in the safer
rural areas. So those of us who depend on large industrial areas for
our bread and butter have to work there. East LA. Compton, Watts,
Downey, etc etc. Industrial areas that look like the worst of the East
German border areas after 5pm
Gunner
Gunner
<mike...@the-patterson-family.com> wrote:
>So everyone in the universe should be forced to live their lives based
>on two of your anecdotal experiences?
>
>I got one for you. One night in downtown Atlanta I was stopped at a
>traffic light after work when 2 urban outdoorsmen decided to rob me.
>One went down the passenger side of my van trying door handles while
>the other came up to my window and reared back with a brick to throw
>through the window into my face. I had a .38 revolver with me (I
>worked on ATM machines back then) and all I had to do was lift the gun
>into view. The one with the brick dropped it and yelled "he gots a
>gun!" then ran away. His buddy beat him to the alley.
>
>Note that I never even had to put my finger on the trigger. No dead,
>no wounded. A bad case of the shakes afterward, but no blood.
>
>In this case if I had -not- had a gun the outcome would "have been a
>messy business in many ways".
>
>My wife & children might disagree that Daddy should be dead or hurt
>because it terrifies you that he had the means to defend himself from
>predators.
Another example:
Id had a back surgery, and still had the staples in my back. Using a
cane was a requirement and moving fast was out of the question. My wife
and I had traveled the 42 miles to the doctors office for a very late
afternoon checkup and were returning home along a very dark and desolate
rural road.
A car pulled up along side of my old long bed Chevy stepside pickup, and
tried forcing us off the road. My wife had very long and shiney blond
hair, and she was driving, while I was slumped exhausted in the
passenger seat. For the next 10 or more miles, the car did everything,
including slamming into our rear bumper to get us off the road. A
large number of such incidents had occured along this stretch of road
over the previous years, resulting a a number of rapes and robberies by
a gang of 4 hispanic males. One woman was beaten to death after being
raped.
At this point, I knew we were in trouble, so I drew my stainless steel
.45 and with them on our rear bumper, I held the weapon up in their
head lights and racked the slide. My full intention was to lean out the
passenger window and empty the magazine, 14" above the headlights. I
probalbly would have torn the staples out of my back..
Upon seeing me rack the slide, the headlights were instantly pointing
down at the pavement as they threw out the anchor and made a U turn in
the opposite direction. No shots were fired, no one was harmed, and my
wife and my self were safe.
About 6 weeks later, an aqqaintence and his wife was in the exact same
situation in the same stretch of road. The car did the same tactics,
bumper tag, trying to force him off the road. Knowing what had happened
to me, and not being a particularly forgiving type, he allowed them to
force him off the road. He turned slightly sideways and slipped out the
passengers door, 45 in hand while his wife ran out into a cotton field.
The car pulled up and as the occupants started exiting the vehicle, base
ball bats etc in hand, R shot them. All 4 of them. Repeatedly. When
those not hit in the first couple seconds drived into the car, he simply
reloaded and shot the car to doll rags. And then reloaded again. He then
advanced on the car, and shot each individual in the head, on the theory
that he was in the middle of no where, with 4 dangerous individuals who
had proven to be a deadly threat not only to him but to many other
people.
This was in the pre-cell phone days of the late 70s. He and his wife sat
in his pickup for about 30 minutes before a car came along and the
driver stopped and at R's request went to call the cops. It took a bit
more than 2 hours for the police to arrive.
To make a long story short..he was congratulated in surviving the
attack, for taking 4 violent career criminals out of the gene pool, and
the spate of rapes and robberies ended instantly. Investigation showed
at least 3 of the individuals were identified by previous victims.
Another instance...working at a shop in East LA, down on Union Pacific
Ave, I have a customer who only works at night, so I have to service
his machines very late. I had walked out to my truck to get something
and was accosted by several minority males with obvious ill intentions.
This is an area where most 2nd shift guys carry a gun, even while
working at their machines, or their shops are inside a compound of chain
link fence and concertina wire around the tops.
When working in this area, I carry a .45 on my hip in a high ride
holster, under an open machinists smock, just to keep my clothes clean
(filthy shop..bleeck!)...anyways..when the 3 underprivledged individuals
requested my wallet, swinging their bits of rebar rather emphaticly, I
assumed a fearful expression, and slowly reached for my wallet. I came
back with my .45. I presented my firearm, and aimed the sights on the
bridge of the leaders nose, and simply said "Go Away".
There was three sharp pops as the air rushed into the vacuum left by
their rather hurried departure. The shop owner evidently had witnessed
the whole thing through a window, and he came outside with a shotgun. He
was chuckling as he wrinkled his nose and said he smelled shit, and sure
enough..there was a trickle leading up the sidwalk in the same direction
the 3 miscreants had fled.
Final score, no shots, 3 runs and 1 foul.
Shrug..it could well have been far worse.
Ed Huntress
>
> Final score, no shots, 3 runs and 1 foul.
>
> Shrug..it could well have been far worse.
You've just got to move to a better neighborhood, Gunner. It will improve
your whole outlook on life.
Ed Huntress
GJRepesh
>votes are counted in bullets. I have no idea when this will happen, but
>history is pretty clear that ALL governments end in civil war or
>invasion./
And the conservatives will be well armed!
Abrasha
I just thought the same thing. As I was reading his prose, I thought to myself,
"What the hell did this guy do to deserve such a life? And why does he continue
to tolerate it?"
I do begin to understand your anger, if not your political leanings.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Gunner
Anger? Shrug..the world can and is a very dangerous place. At home, I
dont even lock the doors if I go uptown for a couple hours. Many folks
leave their car keys in the ignition. Shrug..other places (those
typically run by Liberals btw :P) tend to be a bit less lawful. The
only anger I have, is for the liberals who consider the plight of the
criminal, rather than the law abiding citizen. Those three pukes have
likely been in trouble before..but were loose on the street. With little
fear of the system or the citizen. BTW..:LA is not a place anyone can
get a CCW.
There are lots of places like this, DC, Sydney, NYC, Chicago, London,
etc etc where if you go to the wrong place..commend your soul to God,
and cover your ass as best you can. On the other hand..most places only
have petty crime at worst.
Im sure Ed's been to at least one Westec show. He knows the area
surrounding the facility. Want to walk those streets at 9pm?
I made a bet once with a strident anti-gun controller..that we would
start off on foot from East LA and walk to Downey at 12am on a Friday
night with 5, $100 bills stapled to our shirts. He could go unarmed and
talk his way out of any problems, and I would go as I saw fit. The
survivor..errr winner was the one who got to the finish line with the
most money still on the shirt. Oddly enough..he refused to take that
bet. I wonder why?
Unless you live in a small town, or a gated community...shrug..read the
crime reports for your area and see how safe you are. I dont worry about
people targeting me..its those To Whom it May Concern crimes that I
prepare for.
But then, I wear seat belts, have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers
handy as well.
And I refuse to permit anti- seat belt/smoke detector/fire extinguisher
fanatics from taking them away from me.
Ed Huntress
>
> Im sure Ed's been to at least one Westec show. He knows the area
> surrounding the facility. Want to walk those streets at 9pm?
Actually, I'm going there again in a couple of weeks, and yes, I walk all
around at night. I only get to L.A. once every couple of years or so and I
gawk all around like the tourist I am.
However, I'd much rather walk down the West side of Manhattan late at night.
In fact, I did it nearly every night for four years. 'Never saw a gun.
'Never was threatened in any way.
When you talk about really dangerous places, I have to ask myself, why would
anyone live there on purpose? Some people are stuck there to some degree.
They need ways to deal with it, and carrying a gun is one way. But there is
no reason in the world for most of us to live there. Life is too short, and
it can be difficult enough as it is. Why make it worse by walking through
South-Central L.A., unless you want to get some practice with your gun?
Ed Huntress
JMartin957
>I just thought the same thing. As I was reading his prose, I thought to
>myself,
>"What the hell did this guy do to deserve such a life? And why does he
>continue
>to tolerate it?"
>
>I do begin to understand your anger, if not your political leanings.
>
>Abrasha
>http://www.abrasha.com
>
Gracious, but this do sound like the old saying about a conservative being a
liberal after he was mugged.
John Martin
Jon Anderson
> You've just got to move to a better neighborhood, Gunner. It will > improve your whole outlook on life.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but this is just giving up
territory to the criminals, generally leaving behind those that can't
afford to move and are less likely to be able to defend themselves. Not
everyone can up and move when trouble shows up.
And even rural areas are getting dangerous. Meth is a big problem in
Nevada County, and there are some really scary people running around. I
know, my wife works at the county jail and gets to see lots of them.
Folks that just read the local paper are not getting the full story.
We're lucky that, outside of burglaries, they seem to prefer going after
each other. So far...
Jon
Ed Huntress
news:4050D2D5...@ncwebsurfer.com...
There is a time and circumstance to revert to defending yourself with a gun.
Making it a cause celeb, a way of life, or a way to assert your resentment
about crime and its effects is a case of having forfeited the whole point.
As George Will once said, "...no society can be called successful where
violence is so prevalent and random that lawful citizens must go about
prepared to dispense violence in self-defense."
If you've given up on the idea of a successful society, or if you like
things the way they are, then making self-defense with a gun an acceptable
and unremarkable part of your life is a reasonable response. If you haven't
given up, it's something you do with great distaste and with a determination
to do what you can to change it.
Ed Huntress
Gunner
Because a hell of a lot of people have to live there?
Gunner
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Folks that just read the local paper are not getting the full story.
>> We're lucky that, outside of burglaries, they seem to prefer going after
>> each other. So far...
>>
>> Jon
>
>There is a time and circumstance to revert to defending yourself with a gun.
>Making it a cause celeb, a way of life, or a way to assert your resentment
>about crime and its effects is a case of having forfeited the whole point.
>As George Will once said, "...no society can be called successful where
>violence is so prevalent and random that lawful citizens must go about
>prepared to dispense violence in self-defense."
>
>If you've given up on the idea of a successful society, or if you like
>things the way they are, then making self-defense with a gun an acceptable
>and unremarkable part of your life is a reasonable response. If you haven't
>given up, it's something you do with great distaste and with a determination
>to do what you can to change it.
>
>Ed Huntress
So having a spare tire and a jack in your car means that you dispair of
having good tires?
They are for the Shit Happens stuff, just like a defensive firearm.
And you can pontificate all you want..up till the moment you are
approached by a couple social misfits who want to share your wealth or
your life.
At that point..what you believe, what you want, what ever
philosophical mind set you have developed...all goes out the window and
you are suddenly given a reality check. With luck, you dont have to
cash it.
A.Gent
> Anger? Shrug..the world can and is a very dangerous place.
<snip>
> There are lots of places like this, DC, Sydney, NYC, Chicago, London,
> etc etc where if you go to the wrong place..commend your soul to God,
> and cover your ass as best you can.
Ummmm...
More information please, Gunner.
I've only lived in Sydney's 'burbs for nigh-on 50 years, so maybe I've missed
something.
King's Cross? Oxford Street? Cabramatta? Redfern?
I've driven cabs for a living, and on the midnight-to-dawn shift the only jobs going
are 'round there. Worst violence I suffered was a drunk puking in the back of the
cab. Should I have shot him?
Where are these "wrong places"?
Please, tell me you don't believe the nonsense they write in the tabloids? (Ref the
recent "riots" in Redfern. pshaaww!)
If you're dopey enough to walk through some places with $100 dollar bills stapled to
your coat, then yes, indeed: "...the world can and is a very dangerous place."
Its pretty dangerous if you stand blindfolded in traffic, too.
Maybe you should shoot the drivers who don't swerve to miss you? (for their criminal
negligence)
Shrug.
Whatever.
Jeff.
(still surviving, gunless and swordless, and not paranoid, in Sydney.)
Ed Huntress
> >
> >When you talk about really dangerous places, I have to ask myself, why
would
> >anyone live there on purpose? Some people are stuck there to some degree.
> >They need ways to deal with it, and carrying a gun is one way. But there
is
> >no reason in the world for most of us to live there. Life is too short,
and
> >it can be difficult enough as it is. Why make it worse by walking through
> >South-Central L.A., unless you want to get some practice with your gun?
> >
> >Ed Huntress
> >
> Because a hell of a lot of people have to live there?
Yeah, but YOU don't. That's the point.
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
That's what Will was talking about. Comparing human lives to tires is
evidence of a spiritual failure.
Ed Huntress
wm...@remove_thiscitlink.net
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:47:05 GMT, wmbjk@REMOVE_THIScitlink.net wrote:
>>You might try moving. Just don't leave the boogeyman your forwarding
>>address.
>
>Its unfortunate that good paying jobs are not available in the safer
>rural areas. So those of us who depend on large industrial areas for
>our bread and butter have to work there. East LA. Compton, Watts,
>Downey, etc etc. Industrial areas that look like the worst of the East
>German border areas after 5pm
Aren't you the guy who said his gross is $40k and that it takes 65k
miles per year of commuting to earn it? That's not what I'd call a
good paying job. If you can afford a computer, an ISP account, and the
time to use them ah.... quite a bit, then you can afford to move to a
better area. I wouldn't say that our own rural area has many
high-paying jobs, yet off hand I know one guy with a thriving biz
who's looking for a new hire, and a mile from him another who has a
nice home that's vacant with a large shop on acreage. He might even
swap rent for property maintenance. Both on a tree-covered mountaintop
BTW. Could be a nice setup for someone with even average technical
skills, and a dream compared to your situation. But I'm thinkin' that
even though this is a safe rural area, if you lived here you'd be just
like one of my neighbors who wears a sidearm full time. On guard
against the jackrabbits and boogeymen I guess.
Wayne
Abrasha
Yes he does, because he's stuck, hopelessly stuck. If he'd move to greener
pastures, he'd have to give up so much of his old self, he wouldn't know what to
do with himself.
He's a skilled man, and a survivor, who could find a job almost anywhere, and
for some reason he's tied himself down to ... what exactly? A large pile of
metal and other assorted junk in his back yard judging from his web site.
I suggest honest selfexamination, many years of it. With the help of a trained
professional.
--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Abrasha
> And you can pontificate all you want..up till the moment you are
> approached by a couple social misfits who want to share your wealth or
> your life.
>
> At that point..what you believe, what you want, what ever
> philosophical mind set you have developed...all goes out the window and
> you are suddenly given a reality check. With luck, you dont have to
> cash it.
>
Interesting. In your life, as you say, you have been confronted on several
occasions by people who were out to harm you in a bad way. And, again as you
describe it, you feel that because of the fact that you have had a gun in those
situations, you were able to diffuse those situations.
In my life, I have never been confronted, with any of the situations, that you
have been confronted with. Once I have been in a situation that someone wanted
to harm me (an Englishman on a bad LSD trip).
We are of similar age I think. So why is it, that one person has all these
excperiences involving potential physical harm, guns, criminals, and other
undesirables, and the other has not.
Genes, upbringing, education, luck? Who knows. I firmly believe, that a person
creates his own reality, whatever that reality may be. You have a hand in ALL
that happens to you. It is not always easy to accept this. However, once you
do, and see the truth in this, it will set you free.
Trust me Gunner, you choose. Every moment of your life it is you who chooses to
live that life. Noone forces you to live the life you live, but you. Once you
get that, it is easy to change it. It's that easy.
Sadly, it seems that you have chosen a life that is filled with people who, by
your own account, are after you, and with guns, so you can keep these people at
a distance. Your "nom de plume" speaks volumes about you too.
It doesn't have to be this way.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
John Husvar
>
> Yes he does, because he's stuck, hopelessly stuck. If he'd move to greener
> pastures, he'd have to give up so much of his old self, he wouldn't know what to
> do with himself.
>
> He's a skilled man, and a survivor, who could find a job almost anywhere, and
> for some reason he's tied himself down to ... what exactly? A large pile of
> metal and other assorted junk in his back yard judging from his web site.
>
> I suggest honest selfexamination, many years of it. With the help of a trained
> professional.
If I've read his posts correctly, Gunner hasn't had much trouble at his
home, but while working his business or otherwise away from home.
Hell, I live in one of the reputedly safest neighborhoods in Ohio and
not long ago a neighbor ran off two gentlemen of color and "colors" from
Akron at gunpoint. Apparently they'd secured the son's name and address
from a friend at BMV and were intent on evening a score for "dissing"
them at a dance club. At least that's what they reportedly said.
Of course, I didn't get to hear their stories, but their coming 20 or
more miles from home into a strange neighborhood, bearing knives and
clubs and destroying a family's front door, doesn't induce me to think
their purpose was entirely benign.
Unless one lives in a gated, guarded community, the chance of
encountering "street violence" is non-zero, even if you _don't_ live in
a bad neighborhood. The bad neighborhood might just come to you.
And one just might encounter problems other than at home. Must one
surrender all freedom of movement for avoiding danger or criminality?
Once it was considered an honorable civic duty to hinder or stop a crime
in progress, if possible, and self-defense is always a good reason for
counter violence, though not for initiating it.
I try not to forget that "to Protect and Serve" is a motto, not a promise.
Gunner
Actually last year my gross was about $26k. With the 65k mileage.
Since the big layoffs in 2001, I am now an independent machine tool
repair technician. This means I work on machines in machine shops. If
there are no machine shops (or few of them) then I have no work. No
work =no money. no money= no mortgage payment=out on the street.
So perhaps its best that I stay where there are machine shops, no? Hard
to find enough machine shops in Podunk Falls to make a living fixing
their machines/phone systems/plant maint.
Im also 50 yrs old, with an ailing wife, no savings (well, I have $100
in my pocket for emergencies) and a home that will be paid off in about
12 months, however it happens to be in a town that is dying, and
selling it would result in a net loss.
As to your neighbor carrying a firearm...would he also be one of those
paranoid militant types who has a fire extinguisher close by?
Ill bet you are one of those anti-fire extinguisher types. Do you know
how many people are killed every year by them? LOTS! In fact, we had an
example on this news group where a deadly red fire extinguisher turned
on its owner and committed mayhem and carnage that would may you puke.
Ban Assault Fire Extinguisher! Limited them to less than 10 lbs! If
they have special nozzles, or hangers, they can only be used for
nefarious purposes and should be registered or banned.
Its for the Children!
Gunner
But I have to work there..and thats the point.
And you ignore the poor bastards that do have to live there who are
unable to protect themselves.
Gunner
wrote:
>
>"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:1bb150d4j88s5n2gf...@4ax.com...
>
>> Anger? Shrug..the world can and is a very dangerous place.
>
><snip>
>
>> There are lots of places like this, DC, Sydney, NYC, Chicago, London,
>> etc etc where if you go to the wrong place..commend your soul to God,
>> and cover your ass as best you can.
>
>Ummmm...
>
>More information please, Gunner.
>I've only lived in Sydney's 'burbs for nigh-on 50 years, so maybe I've missed
>something.
>
>King's Cross? Oxford Street? Cabramatta? Redfern?
>I've driven cabs for a living, and on the midnight-to-dawn shift the only jobs going
>are 'round there. Worst violence I suffered was a drunk puking in the back of the
>cab. Should I have shot him?
Did you have reasonable cause to believe that your life was in danger?
If not..of course not.
>
>Where are these "wrong places"?
Redfern is a good start. The "Block" sounds like a dangerous place to be
after dark. Kings Cross has always been a exciting place....
>
>Please, tell me you don't believe the nonsense they write in the tabloids? (Ref the
>recent "riots" in Redfern. pshaaww!)
Heroin addicts tend to make assault a habit as well...
>
>If you're dopey enough to walk through some places with $100 dollar bills stapled to
>your coat, then yes, indeed: "...the world can and is a very dangerous place."
So you are saying that one can indeed be in danger in Sydney? Lets
replace those $100 bills with expensive cameras and do the same shall
we?
>
>Its pretty dangerous if you stand blindfolded in traffic, too.
>Maybe you should shoot the drivers who don't swerve to miss you? (for their criminal
>negligence)
>
>Shrug.
>
>Whatever.
Interesting set of strawmen you fabricate. Is there some reason you
felt the need to spin and divert?
>
>Jeff.
>(still surviving, gunless and swordless, and not paranoid, in Sydney.)
>
Good for you. What makes you think anyone with a gun, or a fire
extinguisher is paranoid?
Gunner Asch
Gunner
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
The inability to follow the logic of "in case shit happens" is either a
blind spot on your part, or an intentional attempt at spin.
Where the fuck did you get "comparing human lives to tires" out of that?
You carry a jack in case you blow out a tire. You carry a weapon in
case someone decides to attack you. With luck, neither will ever be
used.
If your vehicle is parked or driven very slowly on a manicured parking
lot..its unlikley you will ever get a blow out. If you live in a high
security gated community its unlikely anyone will attack you.
Its the rest of the places you go that are a bit more problematic.
Drive near a construction site..the chances of a flat are a lot higher.
Work/travel in a high crime rate area..the chances of an attack are a
lot higher.
Whats do difficult for you to understand about that?