Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A DGU for z, no bananas, no rabid raccoons

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 7:52:46 PM6/26/03
to
For those who have seen this story before, page down about one and read my
opinion (not that it will surprise anyone). Any one who wants can count the
mistakes the young woman made that could have been fatal. Her mother made a
couple too.

Oh, since I had the time, I thought I'd post this while I was in the mood
instead of waiting for z to crank up enough gumption to be respectful, not
to me, but to the subject at hand.

--------


Dan Bennett's sister was still living at her mother's home in Charlotte
Park. She decided that she wanted a burger and fries from Burger King late
one evening. She went through the neighborhood to Charlotte Ave. and headed
toward BK.

She noticed a car following too close and it remained on her bumper as she
pulled into the BK parking lot. Instead of stopping at the drive thru
window, she hit Charlotte Ave. again and headed toward home. She picked up
her cell phone and called her mom. Mom told her to get home as quickly as
possible. The driver of the other car bumped her rear bumper, causing her
to drop the phone. She headed into the neighborhood as fast as she could
drive. The other car was right behind her, knocking down street signs and
mail boxes to keep her in sight.

In the mean time, Mom called 911 and told the dispatcher what was happening.
Hearing the pursuit, she grabbed a .357 revolver from the hall table. She
got to the door just as the two cars came to a screeching halt in front of
her house, at the end of a dead end street. As she opened the door, she saw
a man snatch open the door of her daughter's car and pull her out.

Mrs. Bennett ran up behind the man and struck him on the back of the head
with the revolver. He turned and knocked the gun from her hand, then
focused his attention on his original victim. Fortunately, by this time
Miss Bennett has regained some small composure and put her knee squarely in
his groin and recovered the gun. After the perpetrator caught his breath
and straightened up, she had the gun pointed at him. "Stop, or I'll shoot."
He apparently had some doubts, so he stepped forward. She then thumb cocked
the revolver and repeated her warning.

As Dan said, "He had a sudden attack of intelligence." Shortly thereafter
Metro police showed up. Again according to Dan, it was hard to tell who was
gladder to see them, the two women or the "gentleman" staring down the
barrel of a .357 head by a nervous, pissed off woman.

----------

Now, z(ero), if you have trouble with the veracity of the above, I suggest
you contact Dan Bennett. He tells it much better than I. The legal
aftermath is a hoot.

Tell me, when was Mrs. Bennett armed? The entire time since it was in the
hall table in her home or only when she removed it from the table? When did
Miss Bennett become armed? Did the goblin have one or more weapons? Is the
above a legitimate example of a DGU? Does your chewing gum lose its flavor
on the bedpost over night?

--
Kent Finnell, From the Music City USA

Molon labe! ... Leonidas to Xerxes (480 BC)

jakdedert

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 12:04:08 AM6/27/03
to
So, Kent...you've got *one* 'DGU' on that day. Do you suppose there were
any crimes also committed on the same day where the perpetrator was armed?
One, maybe?

If so, where are the other two DGU's for the day? ...and if there were more
than one, multiply that number times three and show me the like number of
DGU's.

Listen, you made the assertion...now provide the cite or at least the method
used to come up with the number...

...or just pipe down. You don't even need to admit it's unsupportable. We
know that. You've not provided anything to counter it, despite repeated
challenges.

jak
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OzLKa.46295$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 10:54:23 PM6/26/03
to

"jakdedert" <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QsNKa.16284$XR4....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

> So, Kent...you've got *one* 'DGU' on that day. Do you suppose there were
> any crimes also committed on the same day where the perpetrator was armed?
> One, maybe?

Several, no doubt. But you don't think that the perp that attacked Dan's
sister was armed? Oh, yeah, forget the 3,000 lb car and the strength
differential between the average male and the average female. To be armed
doesn't always mean guns. Any weapon, by designed or make shift, counts.
The eminent threat is all that counts.

>If so, where are the other two DGU's for the day? ...and if there were
more
> than one, multiply that number times three and show me the like number of
> DGU's.

What makes you think that I keep track of all the criminal activities in
Nashville or even the DGUs. Since I'm not doing the job to suit you, why
don't you do it, but you prove that there are more crimes than DGUs. Have
at it.

>
> Listen, you made the assertion...now provide the cite or at least the
method
> used to come up with the number...
>
> ...or just pipe down. You don't even need to admit it's unsupportable.
We
> know that. You've not provided anything to counter it, despite repeated
> challenges.
>
> jak

Jack, I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. I've offered to loan you
Lott's book, but all you do]
is ask me to redo the work he's done. To quote Jack Nickelson, "You don't
want the truth. You can't handle the truth."

And what makes you think that you have the authority to tell me to "just
pipe down"? We? You and
the mouse in your pocket?

There is no way that your snide remarks are going to beat me down. You're
wrong, Jack. As I've said before, if there just one more crime prevented by
a civilian DGU than is committed by criminal misuse of firearms, it's worth
the effort against smug know-it-alls like you and z(ero).

In short, Jack, take your attitude and put it where the sun don't shine. It
doesn't impress me or MY mouse.

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:16:56 PM6/26/03
to

"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:4danfvckkfrge9uki...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:04:08 -0700, "jakdedert"
> <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >So, Kent...you've got *one* 'DGU' on that day. Do you suppose there were
> >any crimes also committed on the same day where the perpetrator was
armed?
> >One, maybe?
> >
> >If so, where are the other two DGU's for the day? ...and if there were
more
> >than one, multiply that number times three and show me the like number of
> >DGU's.
> >
> >Listen, you made the assertion...now provide the cite or at least the
method
> >used to come up with the number...
> >
> >...or just pipe down. You don't even need to admit it's unsupportable.
We
> >know that. You've not provided anything to counter it, despite repeated
> >challenges.
>
> That's the thing... someone would literally have to mine the police
> reports of every department in the country and make a valid comparison
> before any of this would mean anything.

Uh, Cyrus, that's exactly what Lott did. But you wouldn't know that since
you refuse to accept data that is contrary to your preconceived notions.

> Things written in media
> accounts of any stripe are cherry picked for their interest/appeal and
> the situations cited by any specific interest group certainly have
> their own tilt as well.
>
> That's why it amazes me that any one particular side in this race
> would act as if their argument was any more valid than another.

There has to be a right side and a wrong side to any moral question. Or do
you just prefer to wander around in a grey mist?

--
Kent Finnell

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 1:44:11 AM6/27/03
to
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:54:23 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> You don't even need to admit it's unsupportable.
> We
> > know that. You've not provided anything to counter it, despite repeated
> > challenges.
> >
> > jak
>
> Jack, I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. I've offered to loan you
> Lott's book, but all you do]
> is ask me to redo the work he's done. To quote Jack Nickelson, "You don't
> want the truth. You can't handle the truth."
>
> And what makes you think that you have the authority to tell me to "just
> pipe down"? We? You and
> the mouse in your pocket?

How many of us have to tell you we know you are full of bull before
you would accept the use of the plural pronoun?

Jim

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 8:12:58 AM6/27/03
to

"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
news:i8mnfvsdf8l8gkq4r...@4ax.com...

The royal "we" just doesn't cut it, Jim. And it will take more than you,
Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and z(ero). There's at least an
equal number who support my views on this matter. I take responsibility for
my views and I don't try to impress or coerce others by using the royal or
collective personal pronoun.

Nice try though, Jim. But I'm the last person you should ever try to
intimidate. It brings out the Irish in me (to say nothing of the German and
the Cherokee). The more you push, the more I'll dig in, especially when I
know I right.

Richard Thomas

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:29:45 AM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:51:06 GMT, Cyrus Afzali <pns...@lnubb.pbz>
wrote:

>>Uh, Cyrus, that's exactly what Lott did. But you wouldn't know that since
>>you refuse to accept data that is contrary to your preconceived notions.
>

>If he's been doing it for the past few years, he can't be claiming
>rural America is safer because that's where the crime rates are
>increasing, not decreasing.

The thesis is that more guns in the hands of people reduces crime. As
you say, there are many other issues that influence crime. You can't
just lay out numbers and draw inferences from prima facie reading. You
can however with the correct (not for convenience) statistical methods
test the confidence of the thesis.

>>> That's why it amazes me that any one particular side in this race
>>> would act as if their argument was any more valid than another.
>>
>>There has to be a right side and a wrong side to any moral question. Or do
>>you just prefer to wander around in a grey mist?
>

>Are you actually saying that you can't have a middle of the road view
>on a moral issue? That doesn't jive with the thinking of much of
>America. And the thing that makes moral issues so thorny is you can't
>easily declare what's wrong and right in many particular instances.
>That's up to interpretation.

I think the moral issue is a tangent. There is a moral angle to the
gun control argument but discussing that won't lead to any good
places. The point is that the antis-gun argument has been shown to
have a lot of false and misrepresented data behind it whilst the
pro-gun side has an analyisis that still hasn't had any serious
detractors. The pro gun side has the truth on its side and if we stick
to that, the anti side only looks more and more foolish as they parrot
their discredited ("children are up to 23 years old" type) statistics
and appeal to ("think of the children" type) emotionalism. As can be
witnessed by more and more states converting to "shall issue" (35 now
isn't it kent?) and Alaska going to Vermont carry (no permit
required).

Rich

jakdedert

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:14:47 PM6/27/03
to

"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:faOKa.23485$QC5....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
<snip>

>
> Jack, I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. I've offered to loan you
> Lott's book, but all you do]
> is ask me to redo the work he's done. To quote Jack Nickelson, "You don't
> want the truth. You can't handle the truth."

You haven't even cited Lott's methodology. You can't even look out the
window of your car and see this is nonsense. You provide anecdotal/other
evidence of a couple of DGU's and say that it proves your (and Lott's)
original assertion that "there are THREE DGU's FOR EVERY OFFENSIVE USE!"

>
> And what makes you think that you have the authority to tell me to "just
> pipe down"? We? You and
> the mouse in your pocket?

Prove it, or quit saying it's true. I have nothing to prove. You said it.
Back it up...or back it down; or expect to be challenged. Your credibility
(once moderately high in my estimation) dwindles with every lame attempted
'defense.'

> There is no way that your snide remarks are going to beat me down. You're
> wrong, Jack. As I've said before, if there just one more crime prevented
by
> a civilian DGU than is committed by criminal misuse of firearms, it's
worth
> the effort against smug know-it-alls like you and z(ero).

Now you're beginning to sound like your hero; 'We're going to conquer Iraq
because of the imminent threat of WMD...well, we went there because it was a
brutal regime that deserved toppling...." "There are three DGU's to every
OGU....well, just one is enough."

>
> In short, Jack, take your attitude and put it where the sun don't shine.
It
> doesn't impress me or MY mouse.
>

And your style impresses me even less; and I don't even have a mouse...I
guess my daughter's gerbil might count as one. It's a rodent, after all.

jak

jakdedert

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:18:55 PM6/27/03
to

"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KpWKa.60402$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

"Responsibility" in this case can be translated as "Lott said it, so it's
true. If you don't believe it, read his book. I'm not going to clarify
anything, or do any thinking on my own."

Richard Thomas

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 6:35:29 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:18:55 -0700, "jakdedert"
<jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:KpWKa.60402$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

>> The royal "we" just doesn't cut it, Jim. And it will take more than you,
>> Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and z(ero). There's at least an
>> equal number who support my views on this matter. I take responsibility
>for
>> my views and I don't try to impress or coerce others by using the royal or
>> collective personal pronoun.
>
>"Responsibility" in this case can be translated as "Lott said it, so it's
>true. If you don't believe it, read his book. I'm not going to clarify
>anything, or do any thinking on my own."

Or perhaps "I have read a statistical analysis of the facts and have
verified to my own satisfaction that it is honest and, as far as I can
tell, is not biased in its methodologies. Until someone can discredit
the raw data or the methodologies or, alternatively, provide data and
methodologies that I can verify is honest and unbiased that present an
opposing conclusion, I will be sticking with the presented evidence".

Rich


Richard Thomas

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 6:37:51 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:14:47 -0700, "jakdedert"
<jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Now you're beginning to sound like your hero; 'We're going to conquer Iraq
>because of the imminent threat of WMD...well, we went there because it was a
>brutal regime that deserved toppling...." "There are three DGU's to every
>OGU....well, just one is enough."

Just on a wild tangent, do you know that if you type "WMD" using the
Wingdings font, you get a crucifix, a bomb and a thumbs-down. Clearly
a message that those who oppose Christianity plan to use violent
methods to eliminate it. Spooky, eh? :)

Rich

Jeff Martin

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 7:04:53 PM6/27/03
to
Good points, just one minor correction...

"Richard Thomas" <news...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3efc604e...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...


>
> The thesis is that more guns in the hands of people reduces crime.

More guns in the hands of *law-abiding* people reduces crime. To
para-phrase a bumper sticker, if you criminalize gun ownership, only
criminals will have them.

Jeff Martin

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 7:11:11 PM6/27/03
to

"Richard Thomas" <news...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3efcc6da...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...

If you type UN, you get a cross and a poison symbol. Hmm. Is the UN
poisoning Christianity, or is Christianity poisoning the UN? Maybe
Cigarette Smoking Man knows.

<G>
jeff

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 7:48:38 PM6/27/03
to

"Richard Thomas" <news...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3efcc5ed...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
Thank you, Rich, you stated it much better than I have been able to do.
Below are the types of methodologies used by Lott in his book, "More Guns,
Less Crime". This is not for your benefit, but for Jack's. My copy is
still available for loan. I refuse to copy page after page of admittedly
dry statistics and analysis.

Page 320/Index

methodology
-aggregate variables, 60, 278-79n3, 281n20
-case study method, 24-25
-causality, 153-54
-classification of states, 279n5
-and crime rates with other variables uncontrolled, 280-81n16
-cross-sectional studies, 22-24, 273n3
-cross-state studies, 151-52
-determining gun ownership, 275n2
-endogeneity problem, 22, 24-25, 146
-endogenous and exogeneous, 272-73n2
-polls, 276nn5, 7-8
-regression analysis, 245-48
-statistical significance, 248-49
-surveys, 21
-time-series studies, 22-24, 273n3
-relation of crime and arrest rate, 275n26

Now those terms are meaningless unless a) you're a statistician and/or b)
you've read the book. Jack refuses to take the challenge to read the book.
It might burst his bubble.

z(ero) mentioned Dr. Arthur Kellerman. Here's Lott's description of his
"study."

Some cross-sectional studies have taken a different approach and used the
types of statistical techniques found in medical case studies. Possibly the
best know paper was done by Arthur Kellerman and his many co-authors, who
purport to show that "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and
independently associated with an increased risk of homicide." The data for
this test consists of a "case sample" (444 homicides that occurred in the
victim's homes in three counties) and a "control" group (388 "matched"
individuals who lived near the deceased and were the same sex and race as
well as the same age rage). After information was obtained from relatives
of the homicide victim or the control subjects regarding such things as
whether they owned a gun or had a drug or alcohol problem, these authors
attempted to see if the probability of a homicide was correlated with the
ownership of a gun.

There are many problems with the Kellerman et al.'s paper that under-cut the
misleading impression that victims were killed by the gun in the home. For
example, they fail to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases
could it be established that the "gun involved had been kept in the home."
More important, the question posed by the authors cannot be tested properly
using their chosen methodology because of the endogencity problem discussed
earlier with respect to cross-sectional data.

----

In other words, bad science.

Here are some more, less kind, evaluations of Kellerman's "study."

http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/read5.html

--
Kent Finnell

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 9:58:17 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:12:58 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > How many of us have to tell you we know you are full of bull before
> > you would accept the use of the plural pronoun?
> >
> > Jim
>
> The royal "we" just doesn't cut it, Jim. And it will take more than you,
> Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and z(ero). There's at least an
> equal number who support my views on this matter. I take responsibility for
> my views and I don't try to impress or coerce others by using the royal or
> collective personal pronoun.
>
> Nice try though, Jim. But I'm the last person you should ever try to
> intimidate. It brings out the Irish in me (to say nothing of the German and
> the Cherokee). The more you push, the more I'll dig in, especially when I
> know I right.

Amazing. Simply amazing. How you can enumerate exactly why you are
wrong and then claim you're right is totally incredible! I guess
you've been listening to Republican presidents for too long. (From
"This is not an invasion (of Cambodia)" to "Read my lips" to "Weapons
of mass destruction".) How many legs does a dog have if you call its
tail a leg? When you're wrong saying you are right doesn't make it
so.

Jack may or may not have been using the royal "we", but the fact
that, as you count them, at least five people realize you are mostly
full of bull entitles Jack and the rest of us to be interpreted as
using just the plain ol' first person plural when any of us say "we"
know you're arguments are hollow at best and either imbecilic and/or
dishonest at worst.

Jim

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:16:00 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:35:29 GMT, news...@bellsouth.net (Richard
Thomas) wrote:

> Or perhaps "I have read a statistical analysis of the facts and have
> verified to my own satisfaction that it is honest and, as far as I can
> tell, is not biased in its methodologies. Until someone can discredit
> the raw data or the methodologies or, alternatively, provide data and
> methodologies that I can verify is honest and unbiased that present an
> opposing conclusion, I will be sticking with the presented evidence".

That's still not much but it's a whole lot more honest and cogent
than anything Kent has said.

Jim

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:23:56 PM6/27/03
to

"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
news:c4spfvc1hdq60fako...@4ax.com...

How the hell did the Republican presidents get into this thread? You're
struggling, Jim, and it makes you look bad. Where did I enumerate exactly
why I wrong? Exact quote, Jim, no cut and paste.

>
> Jack may or may not have been using the royal "we", but the fact
> that, as you count them, at least five people realize you are mostly
> full of bull entitles Jack and the rest of us to be interpreted as
> using just the plain ol' first person plural when any of us say "we"
> know you're arguments are hollow at best and either imbecilic and/or
> dishonest at worst.
>
> Jim

Specific examples, Jim. Prove I'm full of bull. Otherwise it's simply
opinion.


--
Kent Finnell

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 10:53:00 PM6/27/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:23:56 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>Exactly<<< the same way your worthless buddy Dan Bennett got in
here. Are you the only one allowed to invoke the name or words of
fools?

> You're
> struggling, Jim, and it makes you look bad. Where did I enumerate exactly
> why I wrong? Exact quote, Jim, no cut and paste.

Holy crap, Kent! I did give you the exact frigging quote. Read
above as re-reposted, or for your pitiful convenience, following: "And


it will take more than you, Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and

z(ero)." Me, Cyrus, Jack, B.B. and Z (the *5* of us) == "we".

> Specific examples, Jim. Prove I'm full of bull. Otherwise it's simply
> opinion.

I've provided innumerable examples over the months and years, Kent.
(Most recently in this post and my previous one.) But you are right in
this case. Short of a forensic analysis of your stuffing, I can't
prove you are full of bull. It is my opinion and the opinion of
others, supported by your use of (probably innocent by reason of
ineptitude) subterfuge and idiotic anecdotes, that you're full of it.

Jim

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 11:21:51 PM6/27/03
to

"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
news:15vpfv8kqjjbls4qd...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:23:56 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
> <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:c4spfvc1hdq60fako...@4ax.com...
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:12:58 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
> > > <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amazing. Simply amazing. How you can enumerate exactly why you are
> > > wrong and then claim you're right is totally incredible! I guess
> > > you've been listening to Republican presidents for too long. (From
> > > "This is not an invasion (of Cambodia)" to "Read my lips" to "Weapons
> > > of mass destruction".) How many legs does a dog have if you call its
> > > tail a leg? When you're wrong saying you are right doesn't make it
> > > so.
> >
> > How the hell did the Republican presidents get into this thread?
>
> >>>Exactly<<< the same way your worthless buddy Dan Bennett got in
> here. Are you the only one allowed to invoke the name or words of
> fools?

So, in YOUR opinion, Dan is both worthless and a fool. As Arte Johnson used
to say, "Very interesting." I haven't talked to Dan in several years, but
unless you dropped a safe on his head in the meantime, your evaluation of
him is at least 170 degrees off.

I only mention Dan by name to indicate that I wasn't making up a DGU, no
invoking of anyone.

>
> > You're
> > struggling, Jim, and it makes you look bad. Where did I enumerate
exactly
> > why I wrong? Exact quote, Jim, no cut and paste.
>
> Holy crap, Kent! I did give you the exact frigging quote. Read
> above as re-reposted, or for your pitiful convenience, following: "And
> it will take more than you, Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and
> z(ero)." Me, Cyrus, Jack, B.B. and Z (the *5* of us) == "we".

So you held a conference. Did z and Blackie wear masks to conserve their
anonymous personae?

>
> > Specific examples, Jim. Prove I'm full of bull. Otherwise it's simply
> > opinion.
>
> I've provided innumerable examples over the months and years, Kent.
> (Most recently in this post and my previous one.) But you are right in
> this case. Short of a forensic analysis of your stuffing, I can't
> prove you are full of bull. It is my opinion and the opinion of
> others, supported by your use of (probably innocent by reason of
> ineptitude) subterfuge and idiotic anecdotes, that you're full of it.
>
> Jim

Subterfuge? You mean that I lied? Sorry, Jim, but I don't lie. I may,
nay, do make mistakes for which I take responsibility, but I don't lie. I
may be clumsy, but I don't lie. I may forget things, but I don't lie.

jakdedert

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 2:46:26 AM6/28/03
to
Kent, I'll read it. Drop it by, you know the address...told you that
before.

With respect to the below, if you don't understand it well enough to
succinctly explain it; how can you take it as gospel?

jak

"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:%B4La.5697$XE4....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 4:48:17 AM6/28/03
to
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:21:51 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Subterfuge? You mean that I lied?

Big word. Look it up.

> Sorry, Jim, but I don't lie.

Not usually, at least not overtly, but you have.

Jim

Foxbat

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 6:08:58 AM6/28/03
to
Jak,

I hate to agree with Kent on any gub related issue but
here is a short video clip you might find interesting.

http://www.davidkrider.com/downloads/Shopping%20in%20Detroit.mpeg

That one incident must count for at least 6-8 DGU.

--
FB

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 9:21:55 AM6/28/03
to

"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
news:0blqfv816ngcuaqof...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:21:51 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
> <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Subterfuge? You mean that I lied?
>
> Big word. Look it up.

I don't need to, it also means trickery ... something else I'm not into.
The implication is lying. A long time ago someone said I was as subtle as a
brick, as tactful as a tank. Good, bad, or indifferent, the same
description applies today.

>
> > Sorry, Jim, but I don't lie.
>
> Not usually, at least not overtly, but you have.

And who hasn't? I think the term is "mis-speak", more a mistake than a lie.

>
> Jim

Mary B

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 9:24:11 AM6/28/03
to
In article <OzLKa.46295$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>
> Mrs. Bennett ran up behind the man and struck him on the back of the head
> with the revolver. He turned and knocked the gun from her hand, then
> focused his attention on his original victim.

A small 'what if': what if he'd gotten control of the gun?

> Fortunately, by this time
> Miss Bennett has regained some small composure and put her knee squarely in
> his groin and recovered the gun.

The knee-to-the-groin seems to have been the most effective weapon in
the whole story.

Mary

--
"If I can't dance, I want no part in your revolution" - Emma Goldman

Mary B

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 9:29:14 AM6/28/03
to
In article <3efcc6da...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
news...@bellsouth.net (Richard Thomas) wrote:


I don't have WingDings, I have 'webdings'

As such, WMD brings me a loudspeaker symbol, an icy mountaintop,
and a millhouse.

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 10:28:48 AM6/28/03
to

"Mary B" <spam...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:spambox1-D3DD52...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...

> In article <OzLKa.46295$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>,
> "Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Mrs. Bennett ran up behind the man and struck him on the back of the
head
> > with the revolver. He turned and knocked the gun from her hand, then
> > focused his attention on his original victim.
>
> A small 'what if': what if he'd gotten control of the gun?

Exactly. The whole incident is a massive "what's wrong with this picture?".
Given all of the mistakes both of them made, it's a wonder the two women
survived unscathed.

>
> > Fortunately, by this time
> > Miss Bennett has regained some small composure and put her knee squarely
in
> > his groin and recovered the gun.
>
> The knee-to-the-groin seems to have been the most effective weapon in
> the whole story.

DKU? ;-) Yes, but only up to the point where the goblin caught his breath
and started toward the younger woman again, then it was DGU.
>
> Mary
>
I may miss some, but the young woman could have 1) told the person at the BK
drive thru to call the cops or gone into the BK and asked the manager to do
it, or even used her cell phone to do the same.

2) She should have never headed home, but straight to MNDCPD's West Station.

The problem with the 2 above is that the perp would have just peeled off to
find another victim before the cops could either capture him and charge him
with what? ... following too close?

3) Why didn't the younger woman lock her car doors, either at the beginning
of her trip or at sometime during the chase? Damnifino. Should be rule
one, especially for a lone driver, most especially at night. But how many
of us do it?

4) Mom should have never taken the gun outside the house without the full
intent to use it. A warning shot from the porch would probably been more
effective.

4) One of the first things taught in the basic carry training class is that
if you're close enough to touch the attacker, the attacker is close enough
to touch you (duh). The average man can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds (I
doubt that a woman is measurably slower). Anything closer than 21 feet is
too damn close. 30 feet is close aplenty, that 9 feet is a narrow safety
zone. Just think, most of the rooms in your home are less than 20 feet in
any direction.

Mom, being a nice, gentle woman, didn't want to hurt anyone. The blow to
the head with a 3 or 4 pound gun was probably no more than a love tap as far
as the "gentleman" was concerned. He probably didn't even know it was a gun
that hit him. He swatted away the annoyance behind him and concentrated on
his initial objective.

Even though Jim Garrett wants to dismiss it because the source was Dan
Bennett, there are lessons to be learned from the story.

Could or should Mom've shot the goblin? Probably not without proper
training. It would have been in defense of others (her daughter), but
lacking the skill born of training, she should not have.

At which point could the daughter have legally shot her attacker? When she
first retrieved the revolver and he resumed his attack, most likely. When
he ignored her first verbal warning, again most likely. But when she thumb
cocked the gun and gave her second verbal warning and he had that sudden
burst of intelligence, the threat had ceased.

That's when deadly force is no longer an option. If he had turned and ran
like a scalded dog, same thing.

It's a little costly, but I think that the basic self defense training
required to obtain a carry permit isn't wasted even if the weapon is never
carried. Now I mean a good course, not one of the minimal 8 hour (wink,
wink) courses offered all over the state. It's two full days or it is money
wasted.


--
Kent Finnell

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 11:47:11 AM6/28/03
to
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:28:48 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> Even though Jim Garrett wants to dismiss it because the source was Dan
> Bennett

You are just simply dumber than a rock.

The question was, "Can you back up your claim that there are 3
defensive gun uses for every gun crime?" (Or words to that effect.)
Your B*nn*tt story (thinking of Beetlejuice -- I don't care to mention
that name too often) does abso-frigging-lutely *nothing* to address
that question. That's why I disparage it.

Not to mention the fact that, while it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand, it is an excellent anecdote (nothing more) to use if
you want to demonstrate that keeping a gun at home is not always a
good idea. Except for basically a roll of the dice, it's little short
of a miracle the story didn't end with two dead women lying in the
driveway.

Jim

Bobby Meursault

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 1:53:20 PM6/28/03
to
Jim Garrett <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message news:<c4spfvc1hdq60fako...@4ax.com>...

Six!

Bobby Meursault

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 2:38:09 PM6/28/03
to

"Bobby Meursault" <b_meu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a687d950.03062...@posting.google.com...

Three who are willing to identify themselves and three, including yourself,
hiding behind screen names. Unless, of course, you're so deep in the wine
bottle you don't know who you are. A quick search of Bell South indicate no
one with the family name of Meursault has BellSouth telephone service in
Tennessee.

So, troll, who gives a damn what you think?


--
Kent Finnell

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 4:26:13 PM6/28/03
to
In article <H6lLa.7468$Im5....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> A quick search of Bell South indicate no
> one with the family name of Meursault has BellSouth telephone service in
> Tennessee.

And you wonder why some of us choose to remain private persons.

Bobby Meursault

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 10:26:49 PM6/28/03
to
"Boy Finnelle" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<H6lLa.7468$Im5....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...

> Three who are willing to identify themselves and three, including yourself,
> hiding behind screen names. Unless, of course, you're so deep in the wine
> bottle you don't know who you are. A quick search of Bell South indicate no
> one with the family name of Meursault has BellSouth telephone service in
> Tennessee.
>
> So, troll, who gives a damn what you think?

Kent! It was so sweet of you to try to find me. And here I thought
you'd already gone back to Texas! I don't have a phone myself, use my
sister's just a quarter mile up the road (she's married). There are
two other Meursaults that I know of in Tennessee, but like so many
poor people, they are in chronic debt and have unlisted numbers to
avoid bill collecters.

I think what we are seeing here is an expression of disgust at your
endless iterations of NR-Gay bilge. I have only been in this group for
a short time and like gubs more than most, but you have proven
yourself to be a bore and an unworthy opponent. I can imagine what the
others must think. Give the gubs a rest for a while and try women.
Novel experiences can be quite exciting.

Bobby Meursault - From Fairview Armed and Free

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 10:53:26 PM6/28/03
to
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:26:13 -0500, Boston Blackie <bbla...@mail.com>
wrote:

No sh*t. I don't know why I keep putting off anonymizing myself on
usenet. The same reason people put off writing a will, etc., I
suppose. I think I'm exempt and just too damn lazy, I guess. I
really think Kent is harmless but I know from personal experience that
it ain't the snakes you see that bite you. There is no telling what
kind of lurkers there are out there.

Jim

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 11:28:14 PM6/28/03
to

"Bobby Meursault" <b_meu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a687d950.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Boy Finnelle" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<H6lLa.7468$Im5....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
> > Three who are willing to identify themselves and three, including
yourself,
> > hiding behind screen names. Unless, of course, you're so deep in the
wine
> > bottle you don't know who you are. A quick search of Bell South
indicate no
> > one with the family name of Meursault has BellSouth telephone service in
> > Tennessee.
> >
> > So, troll, who gives a damn what you think?
>
> Kent! It was so sweet of you to try to find me. And here I thought
> you'd already gone back to Texas!

I'm proud to be a native Tennessean and I've never been to Texas.

> I don't have a phone myself, use my
> sister's just a quarter mile up the road (she's married).

Yeah, sure, right ...

> There are
> two other Meursaults that I know of in Tennessee, but like so many
> poor people, they are in chronic debt and have unlisted numbers to
> avoid bill collecters.

Oh, a family of deadbeats. Why am I not surprised.

>
> I think what we are seeing here is an expression of disgust at your
> endless iterations of NR-Gay bilge. I have only been in this group for
> a short time and like gubs more than most, but you have proven
> yourself to be a bore and an unworthy opponent. I can imagine what the
> others must think. Give the gubs a rest for a while and try women.
> Novel experiences can be quite exciting.

"Gub"? Yet another infected with the lala ktreemn virus. Just shows to go
ya what will happen when you practice unsafe computing.


>
> Bobby Meursault - From Fairview Armed and Free

You seem awfully concerned about homosexuality, Li'l Bobby. Projection?


--

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 11:17:25 PM6/28/03
to

"Jim Garrett" <jim-g...@att.net> wrote in message
news:brksfvg408pi9nkch...@4ax.com...

Heh, now talk about paranoid.

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 9:31:41 AM6/29/03
to
In article <o5BLa.3947$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> I'm proud to be a native Tennessean and I've never been to Texas.

and I'll bet you're proud of that, too.

tmac

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:04:21 AM6/29/03
to
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:28:14 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>
>You seem awfully concerned about homosexuality, Li'l Bobby. Projection?

There's something funny and sad at the same time about someone who's
getting his ass kicked and doesn't even know it.

tmac, also not listed in the phone book

Mary B

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:13:46 AM6/29/03
to
In article <UqhLa.7625$j31....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
> DKU? ;-) Yes, but only up to the point where the goblin caught his breath
> and started toward the younger woman again, then it was DGU.

> I may miss some, but the young woman could have 1) told the person at the BK
> drive thru to call the cops or gone into the BK and asked the manager to do
> it, or even used her cell phone to do the same.

Yes, there were an amazing number of things that could have been
done differently.

Mary B

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:19:31 AM6/29/03
to
In article <brksfvg408pi9nkch...@4ax.com>,
Jim Garrett <jim-g...@att.net> wrote:

Did you know that you can have yourself listed in the phone book
under _any name you'd like to use_? Seriously. I've been listed
under my mother's maiden name for several years - it's
cheaper than going unlisted (woo! save $12 a year!). Problem
for me is, there is someone with a similar name, for whom
bill collectors call me - and have for almost as long as I've
had the number. I enjoy messing with them.

Jim Garrett

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:20:35 AM6/29/03
to
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:17:25 -0500, "Kent Finnell"
<kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > And you wonder why some of us choose to remain private persons.
> >
> > No sh*t. I don't know why I keep putting off anonymizing myself on
> > usenet. The same reason people put off writing a will, etc., I
> > suppose. I think I'm exempt and just too damn lazy, I guess. I
> > really think Kent is harmless but I know from personal experience that
> > it ain't the snakes you see that bite you. There is no telling what
> > kind of lurkers there are out there.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Heh, now talk about paranoid.

Paranoia is why I drive the right side of the road. I have this
unreasonable fear that if I drive on the left, someone might run into
me. And it wasn't just a cliché; where I live rife with copperheads
and rattlesnakes. I'm still not afraid of the ones I see, but I was
bitten by a copperhead I didn't see until I jerked my hand back while
it was still attached.

Some things make sense. Using your real name on usenet is probably
not among them. You and I are in the same boat here, and, like you, I
don't figure I've got anything to hide, I'm not afraid to have my name
associated with my writings, etc., etc. Nevertheless, if some news
group lurker ever shows up at my house unannounced, almost no matter
what his intentions, I'm probably going to be thinking, in hindsight,
that it would have been prudent to have been using a nom de usenet.
It may never happen, but it's cheap insurance and probably worth the
price. Like locking your car doors while driving around at night,
especially in questionable neighborhoods.

Jim, for now

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:33:28 AM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:33:03 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !]3Io1k-WC8DsCg@W`K(I!-<B (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article <g3stfvc7cjni0aiaa...@4ax.com>,
Jim Garrett <jim-g...@att.net> wrote:

> it's cheap insurance and probably worth the
> price. Like locking your car doors while driving around at night,
> especially in questionable neighborhoods.

Jim, get with the program! No need to lock your doors, to worry about
who comes to the door, or even snakes!

Walk the walk, son. Git yourself a big iron and wait with bated breath
for the chance to scare off (or better yet shoot) a 'goblin' both for
the personal satisfaction and to add to Lott's statistics!

I can tell you simply haven't been paying attention!

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:40:02 AM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:39:36 -0500 (CDT)

NNTP-Posting-Host: !]3Io1k-WC8DsCg@W`K(I!-<B (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article <0994bd88ddf99129d1f866bbfb38bd9e@TeraNews>,
tmac <nos...@noemail.net> wrote:

> There's something funny and sad at the same time about someone who's
> getting his ass kicked and doesn't even know it.


In article <20030618021326...@mb-m13.aol.com>,
ktr...@aol.com (Ktreemn) wrote:

> I hope you are laughing *at* Kent instead of with.
> Kent is able to grasp the most germane subtleties...

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:14:23 AM6/29/03
to

"Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bblackie-AEBB7E...@library.airnews.net...

There you go again (TM Ronald Reagan), making assumptions. The ass in this
case is you, Blackie.


--
Kent Finnell

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:54:54 AM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:54:29 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !X`*V1k-WRG4WR,FV&&&E>)b] (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article <3uDLa.41887$XE4....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The ass in this case is you, Blackie.

Ah, the accountant in you seems to be fixated on asses rather than fixed
assets.

But really folks, in the light of Lawrence vs. Texas, no longer need it
be asked: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a man on
the moon?"

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:07:37 PM6/29/03
to
In all the debates about books and statistics (all of which mean diddly), I
have yet to have anyone who favors gun control tell me what they would have
done or what they think I should have done while living across from a
juvenile turned adult felon who wound up pointing a gun at 20 police
officers and his little buddy who stabbed his grandmother and his wicked
evil step-mother who sicced a rottweiler on me or the father who would play
chicken with me every time he saw me coming down the road towards him in the
car. We kept them in court for three years constantly, called police
constantly, but I was here 24/7 with them over there. I want specifics.
Walk two moons in another's moccasins and tell me. Tell me. No books, no
stats, real life. Not *in a perfect world* not *well if everybody did so
and so* this world now. Me against them. Tell me.

Faye


dB

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:54:23 PM6/29/03
to

Faye wrote:

These anti-gun folks would like us to believe the police are gonna protect us.
As if!
It's simply not true. Oh, they'll come fill out a report, after you've been
assaulted, or worse. When some big Bubba's kicking their door in, I hope they
don't mind waiting 45 minutes for the cops to arrive. I'll bet Bubba can beat
the clock. And the door.
david


Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:51:36 PM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:51:10 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !^:`P1k-Wg6JV8lG]ag@EFE`' (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article
<t1FLa.27206$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

I'd like to ask you two questions: Did you ever have to brandish or use
your gun in your confrontations with your miscreant neighbors?

Also, would you favor a form of gun control that would keep the weapon
out of the hands of your miscreant neighbors?

As to my credentials, I have said before I don't feel the need to own a
gun. I am not ready, however, to say that someone who believes they
need one, or someone who would only use it responsibly should be denied
that ownership.

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:57:50 PM6/29/03
to
>"Faye"

How is this a gun control issue?

Have you tried transcendental meditation? ; )

Many suffer injustice.
Have you considered that maybe you are a big baby~!? ; )
Or you could "shoot first" and let the dust settle as it might.
Some folks wouldn't sleep well with this 'preemptive problem solving,
but I do~! ; ) Lala

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 12:55:49 PM6/29/03
to

"tmac" <nos...@noemail.net> wrote in message
news:0994bd88ddf99129d1f866bbfb38bd9e@TeraNews...

Li'l Bobby keeps insisting that I'm homosexual. I'm not. How's that
getting my "ass kicked." Telling lies is kicking someone's ass? No, Bobby
is a lying troll (pardon the redundancy) hiding behind a screen name.

I've never seen any evidence that you are a troll and there are some who
feel the need to be anonymous though I don't. To quote Popeye, "I am what I
am and that's all that I am."


--
Kent Finnell

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:14:17 PM6/29/03
to
> "Kent Finnell"

>To quote Popeye, "I am what I
>am and that's all that I am."
>

With that sort of self-excusal, it is no wonder you are so dense~!

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:14:36 PM6/29/03
to
No avoidance. No shifting. In my situation, what would you have done?

Faye


"Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message

news:bblackie-37DC1C...@library.airnews.net...

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:20:25 PM6/29/03
to
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030629135750...@mb-m19.aol.com...

> How is this a gun control issue?
>
> Have you tried transcendental meditation? ; )
>
> Many suffer injustice.

This was me.

> Have you considered that maybe you are a big baby~!? ; )

Hardly.

Again, everyone avoids the reality. This is not statistics. Your wife,
your mother, your sister? If these people had any inkling that we were not
armed, there is a very real possibility that you would never have had the
pleasure of my company. Remember, twenty police officers didn't stop this
kid from pointing a gun *once.* Have you ever seen what a rottweiller can
do to a human?

Faye


Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:32:22 PM6/29/03
to

"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:t1FLa.27206$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

You're right, Faye. Books, experts, and statistics mean NOTHING in a real
life situation like you described. Personally I think you were damn lucky
that your defiant confrontation worked as well as it did. But you had
placed them on notice by consistantly calling the police, which would have
made them prime suspects had it gone to something more than a hard core who
flinched first contest.

If I remember correctly, you had used a shotgun in the defense of some of
your livestock from wild or feral animals. Was this known by the feral
family across the road? Were they aware that if push actually came to shove
that the Cherokee in you would transform you, not into a green monster, but
the ultimate female Cherokee warrior?

Would you have been justified in shooting an attacking rottie? Damn
straight. Would you have been justified in shooting the one who siced the
dog on you? Questionable.

You've made your choice and that's essentially where I stand. As an
American, you have the right to choose to be armed or not. Others are not
so lucky.

The antis have yet to bring forth proof that firearms in the hands of law
abiding citizens is a bad thing.

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:35:23 PM6/29/03
to
"dB" <dbs...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:3EFF27CF...@bluemarble.net...

> These anti-gun folks would like us to believe the police are gonna protect
us.
> As if!
> It's simply not true. Oh, they'll come fill out a report, after you've
been
> assaulted, or worse. When some big Bubba's kicking their door in, I hope
they
> don't mind waiting 45 minutes for the cops to arrive. I'll bet Bubba can
beat
> the clock. And the door.

> david

A man.

Faye

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:37:11 PM6/29/03
to
>Faye"

I was afraid I would get a lecture~~! ; )>> Have you tried transcendental
meditation? ; )

>>
>> Many suffer injustice.
>
>This was me.
>
>> Have you considered that maybe you are a big baby~!? ; )
>
>Hardly.
>
>Again, everyone avoids the reality. This is not statistics. Your wife,
>your mother, your sister? If these people had any inkling that we were not
>armed, there is a very real possibility that you would never have had the
>pleasure of my company. Remember, twenty police officers didn't stop this
>kid from pointing a gun *once.* Have you ever seen what a rottweiller can
>do to a human?
>
>Faye
>
>

I dunno, babe. Did the AWB prevent the solution?

If you had invited me over, I'd have shot him for you.

We wouldahadda lure him onto the property at night.... prob'ly
with your nakedness. ; ) Lala

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:37:32 PM6/29/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:BPFLa.4810$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

To quote Popeye, "I am what I
> am and that's all that I am."

A WSM who needs to leave the dark side (the repubs) and come back to the
force (the dems) and do your work through them.

Faye


Foxbat

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:15:21 PM6/29/03
to

You flunked the test. There is a big difference between anti-gun folks and
gun-control folks. You have to understand this before you can play the
game.

--
FB


Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:51:00 PM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:50:34 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !d<$<1k-Xt$@9E3&7g9<'P2=9 (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article
<g0GLa.27395$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> No avoidance. No shifting. In my situation, what would you have done?

I can't honestly say. If I did get a gun I would be tempted to use it,
or show it. And somehow I believe that would only exacerbate the
situation between me and my neighbors.

I might swear out a warrant against them for disturbing the peace, or if
they're renters, swear one out against the landlord.

That would, of course, lead to reprisals on their part in which I would
be tempted to get a gun.

I've been in similar situations myself, and hated it. But you did avoid
my question, did you use a weapon in any way during confrontations with
these folks?

Bobby Meursault

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:53:36 PM6/29/03
to
10 Things We DON'T Want to Hear About From Kent:

1. Gubs
2. Gubs
3. Gubs
4. Gubs
5. Gubs
6. Gubs
7. Gubs
8. Gubs
9. Gubs
10. The travels of his pet gerbil.

Paul Stevens

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 5:17:17 PM6/29/03
to
Kent Finnell wrote:
>

(snip)

> Would you have been justified in shooting an attacking rottie? Damn
> straight.

Yes.

A self-defense action to neutralize a threat of serious bodily harm
or death.

Since the dog presented a danger of death, the person shooting the
dog would also be immune from any civil action (for shooting the dog)
brought by the person who sicced the dog. (If I'm not mistaken)

> Would you have been justified in shooting the one who siced the
> dog on you? Questionable.

No.

The dog was the means to do her harm, so shooting the person would
not have been an action to eliminate the threat of serious bodily
harm. If the dog was shot, the means of attacking her would have
been removed (unless the person moved on to another form of attack).
If the dog had not been shot, shooting the person would not neutralize
the threat (the dog could still attack).

But that doesn't mean a jury wouldn't call it a justified shooting,
just that the lawyers wouldn't.

> You've made your choice and that's essentially where I stand. As an
> American, you have the right to choose to be armed or not. Others
are not
> so lucky.
>
> The antis have yet to bring forth proof that firearms in the hands of law
> abiding citizens is a bad thing.
>
>


--
Paul Stevens


Paul Stevens

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 7:14:33 PM6/29/03
to
Kent Finnell wrote:
>

(snip)

> It's a little costly, but I think that the basic self defense training
> required to obtain a carry permit isn't wasted even if the weapon is never
> carried. Now I mean a good course, not one of the minimal 8 hour (wink,
> wink) courses offered all over the state. It's two full days or it is money
> wasted.

Depends on the particular course/instructor, and on the person taking
the course.


--
Paul Stevens


dB

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 8:26:08 PM6/29/03
to

I understand that I will police my property, and self, within the limits of the law.  I neither want trouble, nor seek trouble, ever.  I will, however, end the trouble, if forced to do so.
Flunk your test, so to speak....
david

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 8:49:22 PM6/29/03
to
> dB

>> > These anti-gun folks would like us to believe the police are gonna
>protect
>> us.
>> > As if!
>> > It's simply not true. Oh, they'll come fill out a report, after you've
>> been
>> > assaulted, or worse. When some big Bubba's kicking their door in, I hope
>> they
>> > don't mind waiting 45 minutes for the cops to arrive. I'll bet Bubba can
>> beat
>> > the clock. And the door.
>> > david
>> >
>>
>> You flunked the test. There is a big difference between anti-gun folks and
>> gun-control folks. You have to understand this before you can play the
>> game.
>>
>> --
>> FB
>

Maybe the "big difference" is understanding the words, themselves. hahahahaha
; ) Lala

Foxbat

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 9:03:50 PM6/29/03
to

"Ktreemn" wrote:

> Maybe the "big difference" is understanding the words, themselves.
hahahahaha
> ; ) Lala
>

Yep.

"Rocky Raccoon checked into his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Rocky had come equipped with a gun
To shoot off the legs of his rival"

- Paul McCartney

--
FB


Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 9:36:59 PM6/29/03
to
"Foxbat" <cal...@nyetspamatt.net> wrote in message
news:KgMLa.8016$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Yep.


Perhaps you'd like to share what you would have done if you were in my
situation.

Faye


Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:01:23 PM6/29/03
to
>Faye"

>> Yep.
>
>
>Perhaps you'd like to share what you would have done if you were in my
>situation.
>
>Faye

I know you didn't ask me, but instead my new friend Foxbat, *but*
if you don't want to try my nakedness plan unless I am actually there ; )
I would gun them down in the street, like the low-down hyphenated dogs they
are~! : ) Like I always do~!.... since I am an upstanding nonhyphenated member
of society, who gets probation, but wants meritorious award~!
: ) Lala

Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:13:25 PM6/29/03
to
"Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bblackie-37BA7C...@library.airnews.net...

> I can't honestly say. If I did get a gun I would be tempted to use it,
> or show it. And somehow I believe that would only exacerbate the
> situation between me and my neighbors.

As I noted in another thread, the only gun we had when this started was a
muzzle loader an old boyfriend had made for me years before. People have
some weird idea about people *brandishing* weapons. They intended to
exacerbate the situation to any levels necessary in an attempt to drive us
from the neighborhood that had feared them for years. There was never a
question that I would back down and let them intimidate me. I guarantee
you, I didn't mess around with piddling handguns. They are gone, I'm still
here. (You didn't grow up around guns, did you?)

> I might swear out a warrant against them for disturbing the peace, or if
> they're renters, swear one out against the landlord.

We kept them in court on far worse than that on and off for three years,
even went to the east police station several times to explain the situation
so officers would know and be alerted. The law enforcement and judicial
systems in Davidson County are a farce. I do not mean this offensively,
but you are being very naive if you think a disturbing the peace warrant
means Anything in Davidson County. Do you know how long it takes to even
get a warrant served here? Months? Years? Or perhaps you are famous,
which is what it takes to get attention. My cousin was *carjacked* years
ago when the practice first started. Three guys stuck a gun in his ribs at
a gas station downtown, shoved him in the car, broke his jaw by pistol
whipping him, and shoved him out bloodied and dazed in the Music Row area.
His car was found a couple of days later. When he picked it up from the
police lot some time later after they should have gotten fingerprints or
something, my cousin found a hypodermic needle, an afro *pick,* a comb, and
other odds n ends--the police had never even looked in it. When he would
try to talk with the police about any attempt to catch the guys who did
this, they were downright hostile with him and let him know they couldn't be
bothered. YET, a TN Titans football player gets his car stolen at gunpoint
and they make it top priority and come hauling the guy in in handcuffs a few
days later. The systems here SUCK. I'm sure not going to bet my life that
they'll protect me.

>
> That would, of course, lead to reprisals on their part in which I would
> be tempted to get a gun.

They were bent on tormenting us through any means possible, nothing to do
with reprisals. Our roles were defensive all the way.

>
> I've been in similar situations myself, and hated it.

The police killed your neighbor? I'm telling you these were the lowest of
the low white trash felons.

But you did avoid
> my question, did you use a weapon in any way during confrontations with
> these folks?

No, as I noted above, we didn't have defensive weapons when this started.
But, eventually, they did know we had guns, because we'd go back in the
pasture out of sight, but not sound and target shoot. They saw my mace and
pepper spray which I would not go anywhere without.

I think it's grand that you feel safe where you live, truly. But please
don't try to deny others what they feel they need to defend themselves when
they find themselves in violent situations that are not their making.

Faye


Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:31:13 PM6/29/03
to
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030629220123...@mb-m28.aol.com...

> I know you didn't ask me, but instead my new friend Foxbat, *but*
> if you don't want to try my nakedness plan unless I am actually there ; )
> I would gun them down in the street, like the low-down hyphenated dogs
they
> are~! : )

Actually, that's exactly what the police did--blew the guy's head off with a
shotgub. They showed him being carried away with his feet in tennis shoes
dangling out from some sort of covering. If the police, twenty strong, felt
threatened enough to shoot him, imagine how it felt to be alone here with
him, his nutty family, and evil cronies *carrying on* all the time.

Like I always do~!.... since I am an upstanding nonhyphenated member
> of society, who gets probation, but wants meritorious award~!
> : ) Lala

Figure out how to eradicate bermuda grass from the face of the earth and
we'll talk about an award. Nonhyphenated is a good start.

Faye
who's been battling back temperate jungle growth all day


Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:10:12 PM6/29/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:09:46 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !b)rk1k-VZ*knX"&8#ruD%h&6 (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article
<91NLa.28081$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> (You didn't grow up around guns, did you?)

Nope. My dad was career army, but he was a Signal Corps officer. As I
mentioned once before I did well with a rifle in ROTC, but otherwise
they were of no interest to me.


> The police killed your neighbor? I'm telling you these were the lowest of
> the low white trash felons.

No, one of my drug-dealing neighbor's clients died next to my house.

> I think it's grand that you feel safe where you live, truly. But please
> don't try to deny others what they feel they need to defend themselves when
> they find themselves in violent situations that are not their making.

I don't think I have tried to do that, if you think I have you've
misunderstood my intent. My only question would be did having a weapon
make you feel safer with your sorry neighbors. If it did, then more
power to you. But it doesn't sound as if they took your target shooting
very seriously if they didn't back off.

Paul Stevens

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:12:53 PM6/29/03
to
Faye wrote:
> "Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:bblackie-37BA7C...@library.airnews.net...
>
>>I can't honestly say. If I did get a gun I would be tempted to use it,
>>or show it. And somehow I believe that would only exacerbate the
>>situation between me and my neighbors.
>
>
> As I noted in another thread, the only gun we had when this started was a
> muzzle loader an old boyfriend had made for me years before. People have
> some weird idea about people *brandishing* weapons.

I've never been able to understand that. They seem to believe the
simple idea of the gun being available, will cause it's owner to start
waving it around (a "show of force"?) whenever a threat is perceived.

Waving a gun around can get you arrested for (IIRC) aggravated assault.

> They intended to
> exacerbate the situation to any levels necessary in an attempt to drive us
> from the neighborhood that had feared them for years. There was never a
> question that I would back down and let them intimidate me. I guarantee
> you, I didn't mess around with piddling handguns.

The only advantage to a handgun is the ability to easily carry it. I've
carried my revolver (in a holster) on a few occasions when I went out
in the woods and needed to keep both hands free for carrying tools and
working. The first two chambers were usually loaded with snakeshot (in
case I goofed and got too close before I saw one), and the rest were
loaded with hollowpoints (we've had problems with dog packs, over the
years, and the neighbors have lost a lot of chickens to coyotes, in the
last few years).

> They are gone, I'm still
> here. (You didn't grow up around guns, did you?)
>

You got that impression, too?


--
Paul Stevens


Faye

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:55:09 PM6/29/03
to
"Boston Blackie" <bbla...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bblackie-E457ED...@library.airnews.net...

> I don't think I have tried to do that, if you think I have you've
> misunderstood my intent. My only question would be did having a weapon
> make you feel safer with your sorry neighbors. If it did, then more
> power to you. But it doesn't sound as if they took your target shooting
> very seriously if they didn't back off.

I think it would have been even worse, perhaps tragically so, otherwise. I
remember how I cried when I learned of the guy's death--a real mixture of
feelings--sorrow for a wasted life, but admittedly some relief that, since
it happened, a police officer had been the one to do what I had had to
seriously contemplate might come to pass here. What a miserable, miserable
position to be in. I think some folks have, fortunately, lived charmed
lives and do not have the empathy to really put themselves in that place.

Faye


Foxbat

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:58:25 PM6/29/03
to
"Faye" wrote:

> Perhaps you'd like to share what you would have done if you were in my
> situation.
>

I have no problem with people having gubs for protection, sport or
hunting as long as they can pass a background check, demonstrate
weapon safety and the ability to handle it under stress situations.

What would I have done? I would have killed the dog. Then, if possible,
smuggled the dog carcass into their house and put it in their bed. Like
the
horse head in the Godfather movie. Barring that, I would have tied red,
white and blue streamers to the dead dog and then used a catapult to hurl
it into their yard.

Regarding the chicken issue. I would lodge a formal complaint with the
police for the first and second event. On the third, I would shoot out his
windshield.

I don't understand why the police and the courts allowed it to drag out so
long. I'm not sure what I would have done but there appears to be 2
options. Move away or fight it. And the latter choice means you gotta
have firepower. You certainly were a prisoner in your own house.

--
FB

Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:33:06 AM6/30/03
to
"Paul Stevens" <pau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3EFFAAB5...@bellsouth.net...

> I've never been able to understand that. They seem to believe the
> simple idea of the gun being available, will cause it's owner to start
> waving it around (a "show of force"?) whenever a threat is perceived.

I know, it makes me want to look at them with that look my little Beagle
sometimes gives when she cocks her head to one side like *what?*

> > They are gone, I'm still
> > here. (You didn't grow up around guns, did you?)
> >
>
> You got that impression, too?

Aye.

It's simply an institution. Until a couple of generations ago, it would
have been very difficult for people to have survived without them around
here. How shortsighted good times make people. During the Depression,
people in this area would have starved but for the abundant game. And each
generation, having seen such hard times, was certainly going to make sure
that the next generation and the next was prepared to fend for themselves.
As we've said numerous times, guns are tools, like knives or chainsaws or
any number of other things that, used inappropriately, can have tragic
consequences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well, all I can do is give 'em
that little tilted head look.
http://www.joelton.com/postcards/4hriflerange.htm

Faye


Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:47:28 AM6/30/03
to
>"Foxbat"

I agree with my friend's CCC. The catapulted carcus concept as developed by the
Carthagenians has been used with great success for centuries.
(It also combats encroaching bermuda.)

But shots thru windshields are for babies,
like fifi. hahahahaha

Warning shots are for those who can't decide whether to fish or cut bait~!

The only real debate is whether to fire addn'l rounds into the body, in it's
indeterminate state. Care must be taken to position one's self for appropriate
angle of trajectory (AAT) forensic purposes. On many occasions, I have snuggled
the abdomen of the near lifeless form in order to create the appearance of
being crowded by an attacker; then firing a point black round in a vertical
direction, also creating powder burns on the clothing of the deceased.
Never shoot them in the back unless it's night.
HTH ; ) Lala

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:53:26 AM6/30/03
to
>Faye

>Actually, that's exactly what the police did--blew the guy's head off with a
>shotgub. They showed him being carried away with his feet in tennis shoes
>dangling out from some sort of covering. If the police, twenty strong, felt
>threatened enough to shoot him, imagine how it felt to be alone here with
>him, his nutty family, and evil cronies *carrying on* all the time.
>
>Like I always do~!.... since I am an upstanding nonhyphenated member
>> of society, who gets probation, but wants meritorious award~!
>> : ) Lala
>
>Figure out how to eradicate bermuda grass from the face of the earth and
>we'll talk about an award. Nonhyphenated is a good start.
>
>Faye
>who's been battling back temperate jungle growth all day
>

That's is a horrifying account~! Bermuda grass is awful~!

; ) Lala

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:00:08 AM6/30/03
to

"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:xwOLa.28150$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I've told the story before about a former boss who got himself shot to death
a little more than a year ago. It was not a shock, not even a surprise,
just something that I had expected that would happen eventually.

The man was foul mouthed beyond belief and violent without reason. I worked
for him about 4 months before I walked out (the only job where I've done
that). I had described his behavior to my ex-wife, a teacher with a Masters
in Special Education, and she said that he sounded like an adult ADD ...
constant motion, uncontrolled temper, no regard for others.

But I told another man about him and his actions and made the casual
statement, "Someone will take care of him for me." The man pulled out a
little nickel plated semi-automatic and said, "Would you like for me to do
it for you?"

I quickly said no, that he was such a violent man who dealt with other
violent men and that someday he would meet up with someone even meaner than
he. About 6 years later, I was proven right. It's a cold chill sort of
thought.

The saddest part of it is that he left three children just like him, the
oldest a girl. The boys were having trouble in junior high (beer in the
locker of the 9th grader). Sounds like history getting ready to repeat
itself.

Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:08:21 AM6/30/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:C9GLa.44704$XE4....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

Were they aware that if push actually came to shove
> that the Cherokee in you would transform you, not into a green monster,
but
> the ultimate female Cherokee warrior?

Aye, what a feeling. I know of no other fury to compare. Even the pale
eyes do not undermine it's strength for it comes from some place deeper over
which we have no control. It simply is. And those who might read this who
don't know, well, they just don't know what it meant when Mammie tossed her
braids back and held that chin and chest out. The warcry is a natural
outgrowth of it that comes from somewhere primitive inside. I do clearly
recall the first time I felt the surge (is it chemical?)--it's not a thing
one can forget. It was (hehe of all places) in the church parking lot one
hot July day after Vacation Bible School. I was nine and my little cousin,
who was six, was walking across the gravel when a boy my age who was in my
class at school walked up and for absolutely no reason, other than because
he could, shoved my little cousin in his back and made him fall into the
gravel. OH! As Mammie would say, it flew all over me! I took off on a
dead run (through the old cemetery behind the church), grabbed the little
sh:t by the collar of his shirt (he was bigger than I was), threw him up on
the back of the nearest car (what a surge of adrenaline!), and jumped on top
of him with my knee jabbing into his solar plexus, all the while
*explaining* why he shouldn't have done that, that he could pick on somebody
his own size. He got his butt whipped by a girl! : ) Some of the VBS
teachers came running out and, I don't know, it's like there's some kind of
aura or something, the eyes are very, very frightening, not one of them
dared lay a hand on me but could only look on. Meanwhile, my aunt (little
cousin's mother) made her way over and had this knowing smile on her face.
When she got there, I finally decided it was ok to let him go as she was the
only one I would trust to understand what all had happened and why it came
down the way it did. It is simply not alright to mess with my family. You
are laughing now? Because you know? Because in our world that IS
civilized, that is what IS Right. You mix ScotsIrishCherokee blood and what
can you get but a warrior race? Most won't understand. The world today is
a difficult place for us to live in. Death before Dishonour. Hell yes.

Faye


Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:12:49 AM6/30/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_kPLa.9919$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

> I've told the story before about a former boss who got himself shot to
death
> a little more than a year ago. It was not a shock, not even a surprise,
> just something that I had expected that would happen eventually.


Yes, I remember, it was over in Cheatham County. You can only push people
so far. Was he a Knight? Johnny? Very dramatic situation. Old-timey
Ridge doin's! If these old hills could talk....

Faye


Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:14:57 AM6/30/03
to
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630004728...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> The only real debate is whether to fire addn'l rounds into the body, in
it's
> indeterminate state. Care must be taken to position one's self for
appropriate
> angle of trajectory (AAT) forensic purposes. On many occasions, I have
snuggled
> the abdomen of the near lifeless form in order to create the appearance of
> being crowded by an attacker; then firing a point black round in a
vertical
> direction, also creating powder burns on the clothing of the deceased.
> Never shoot them in the back unless it's night.
> HTH ; ) Lala

Oh, yeah, right.

Faye


Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:18:53 AM6/30/03
to
"Foxbat" <major...@yaho.com> wrote in message
news:BzOLa.29159$0v4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> I have no problem with people having gubs for protection, sport or
> hunting as long as they can pass a background check, demonstrate
> weapon safety and the ability to handle it under stress situations.
>
> What would I have done? I would have killed the dog.

I was in the middle of a field, unarmed, bare hands.

Then, if possible,
> smuggled the dog carcass into their house and put it in their bed. Like
> the
> horse head in the Godfather movie. Barring that, I would have tied red,
> white and blue streamers to the dead dog and then used a catapult to hurl
> it into their yard.

We went by the letter of the law the entire route. A tormenting process.

>
> I don't understand why the police and the courts allowed it to drag out so
> long.

Those of use who've had experiences with law enforcement and court systems
here keep trying to tell those who haven't The Systems are Totally Illogical
and Dysfunctional.

I'm not sure what I would have done but there appears to be 2
> options. Move away or fight it. And the latter choice means you gotta
> have firepower. You certainly were a prisoner in your own house.

'Twas a rough spell, sadly ended, but ended, that goodness.

Faye


Foxbat

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 4:09:43 AM6/30/03
to

"Ktreemn" wrote:
>
> I agree with my friend's CCC. The catapulted carcus concept as developed
by the
> Carthagenians has been used with great success for centuries.
> (It also combats encroaching bermuda.)
>

Carthagenians: dudes from Carthage

Damn, you mean Al Gore invented the Internet AND the catapult?

I thought of an alternative disposal for the dog, just in case you don't
have your own catapult and the RentaCenter is fresh out of them.

Put him in the deep freeze for a couple weeks. Take out the dogsicle,
put it in a big-ass box, stencil Omaha Steaks on the side of the box and
then FedEx it to the neighbors. How's that?

--
FB


Paul Stevens

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 6:32:59 AM6/30/03
to
Faye wrote:
> "Paul Stevens" <pau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFFAAB5...@bellsouth.net...
>
>>I've never been able to understand that. They seem to believe the
>>simple idea of the gun being available, will cause it's owner to start
>>waving it around (a "show of force"?) whenever a threat is perceived.
>
>
> I know, it makes me want to look at them with that look my little Beagle
> sometimes gives when she cocks her head to one side like *what?*
>

LOL!

>
>>>They are gone, I'm still
>>>here. (You didn't grow up around guns, did you?)
>>>
>>
>>You got that impression, too?
>
>
> Aye.
>
> It's simply an institution. Until a couple of generations ago, it would
> have been very difficult for people to have survived without them around
> here. How shortsighted good times make people. During the Depression,
> people in this area would have starved but for the abundant game. And each
> generation, having seen such hard times, was certainly going to make sure
> that the next generation and the next was prepared to fend for themselves.
> As we've said numerous times, guns are tools, like knives or chainsaws or
> any number of other things that, used inappropriately, can have tragic
> consequences. Anyone who thinks otherwise, well, all I can do is give 'em
> that little tilted head look.
> http://www.joelton.com/postcards/4hriflerange.htm
>

I haven't been there in several years, but in the 1980's the University
Center at TTU had the usual university display of the trophys won by
their teams. The only unusual thing about the display was that almost
every trophy was for their rifle team.


--
Paul Stevens

Paul Stevens

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 6:39:23 AM6/30/03
to

My mother's father was a country blacksmith of Scottish heritage. Her
mother was (IIRC) one quarter Cherokee. You don't have to explain it
to me. I've seen that look in her eyes a few times.


--
Paul Stevens


Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 7:19:23 AM6/30/03
to

"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lFPLa.28201$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
That be he. He once slugged an ER doctor who was trying to save the tip of
a finger that had been cut off in a sawmill accident.

Do you know the disposition of the case against the man who killed him? It
was a two day story on TV that didn't reveal the shooter's name and if the
trial made the newspaper, I didn't see it.

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 7:33:16 AM6/30/03
to

"Paul Stevens" <pau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3F0011D...@bellsouth.net...
The two sisters-in-law of a friend were on the TTU small bore rifle team
that were on the Carter cancelled Olympic team. His entire family are shoot
ers and his brothers enhanced the heritage by marrying the two young women.
BTW, they aren't related to each other except by marriage.

Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:53:51 PM6/30/03
to
"Foxbat" <cal...@nyetspamatt.net> wrote in message
news:_4SLa.300$At...@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...

> Carthagenians: dudes from Carthage
>
> Damn, you mean Al Gore invented the Internet AND the catapult?

He's an amazing man.

> I thought of an alternative disposal for the dog, just in case you don't
> have your own catapult and the RentaCenter is fresh out of them.
>
> Put him in the deep freeze for a couple weeks. Take out the dogsicle,
> put it in a big-ass box, stencil Omaha Steaks on the side of the box and
> then FedEx it to the neighbors. How's that?

Foxbat, where were you when I needed you? ; )

Faye

Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:58:00 PM6/30/03
to
"Paul Stevens" <pau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3F00135...@bellsouth.net...

> My mother's father was a country blacksmith of Scottish heritage. Her
> mother was (IIRC) one quarter Cherokee. You don't have to explain it
> to me. I've seen that look in her eyes a few times.

Enough to know you didn't want the gaze to be cast upon you? LOL!

Might I add that I'm actually a very peaceful person (except when you shove
little children into the gravel : )?

Faye


Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:01:21 PM6/30/03
to
>Foxbat"

>> I agree with my friend's CCC. The catapulted carcus concept as developed
>by the
>> Carthagenians has been used with great success for centuries.
>> (It also combats encroaching bermuda.)
>>
>
>Carthagenians: dudes from Carthage
>
>Damn, you mean Al Gore invented the Internet AND the catapult?

His ancestors. Had Al not been too civilized to mention, in the debates,
georgie's AWOL, business failures, daddy connections and the fact that georgie
is an IDIOT; we'd be in a better place and had the pleasure of seeing a
metaphoric catapulted carcus.
Faye said it well in her legendary "Call for Balls."

>
>I thought of an alternative disposal for the dog, just in case you don't
>have your own catapult and the RentaCenter is fresh out of them.
>
>Put him in the deep freeze for a couple weeks. Take out the dogsicle,
>put it in a big-ass box, stencil Omaha Steaks on the side of the box and
>then FedEx it to the neighbors. How's that?

"Kinky~!" ; ) Lala

>
>--
>FB

>


Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:01:43 PM6/30/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rUULa.12319$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

> Do you know the disposition of the case against the man who killed him?
It
> was a two day story on TV that didn't reveal the shooter's name and if the
> trial made the newspaper, I didn't see it.


No, I haven't heard a thing, Kent. Oddly, I know the person who wound up
with his horse that, as you might guess, was rather unaccustomed to polite
treatment. But then he *got gone* and the person assumed the family came
and got it without a word to them. But that's the last I heard about the
entire affair. It's ashamed that in our *just the facts, ma'am* system,
juries don't get to hear the whole story.

Faye


Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:03:44 PM6/30/03
to
>"Faye"

>> angle of trajectory (AAT) forensic purposes. On many occasions, I have
>snuggled
>> the abdomen of the near lifeless form in order to create the appearance of
>> being crowded by an attacker; then firing a point black round in a
>vertical
>> direction, also creating powder burns on the clothing of the deceased.
>> Never shoot them in the back unless it's night.
>> HTH ; ) Lala
>
>Oh, yeah, right.
>
>Faye
>
>

Many times~! hahahahaha ; ) Lala

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:05:01 PM6/30/03
to
>"Faye

You are *SO* turning me on~! : ) Lala

Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:17:38 PM6/30/03
to
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630130501...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> >"Faye
>
> You are *SO* turning me on~! : ) Lala


And I was wearing a dress (can you stand it? ;)

Faye


Faye

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:20:18 PM6/30/03
to
"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630130121...@mb-m22.aol.com...

> His ancestors. Had Al not been too civilized to mention, in the debates,
> georgie's AWOL, business failures, daddy connections and the fact that
georgie
> is an IDIOT; we'd be in a better place and had the pleasure of seeing a
> metaphoric catapulted carcus.
> Faye said it well in her legendary "Call for Balls."

But you add that poetic touch.

Faye


z

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 1:57:40 PM6/30/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<%B4La.5697$XE4....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> "Richard Thomas" <news...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3efcc5ed...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...

> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:18:55 -0700, "jakdedert"
> > <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >news:KpWKa.60402$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > >> The royal "we" just doesn't cut it, Jim. And it will take more than
> you,
> > >> Cyrus, Jack, and the anonymous Blackie and z(ero). There's at least an
> > >> equal number who support my views on this matter. I take
> responsibility
> for
> > >> my views and I don't try to impress or coerce others by using the royal
> or
> > >> collective personal pronoun.
> > >
> > >"Responsibility" in this case can be translated as "Lott said it, so it's
> > >true. If you don't believe it, read his book. I'm not going to clarify
> > >anything, or do any thinking on my own."
> >
> > Or perhaps "I have read a statistical analysis of the facts and have
> > verified to my own satisfaction that it is honest and, as far as I can
> > tell, is not biased in its methodologies. Until someone can discredit
> > the raw data or the methodologies or, alternatively, provide data and
> > methodologies that I can verify is honest and unbiased that present an
> > opposing conclusion, I will be sticking with the presented evidence".
> >
> > Rich
> >
> Thank you, Rich, you stated it much better than I have been able to do.
> Below are the types of methodologies used by Lott in his book, "More Guns,
> Less Crime". This is not for your benefit, but for Jack's. My copy is
> still available for loan. I refuse to copy page after page of admittedly
> dry statistics and analysis.
>
> Page 320/Index
>
> methodology
> -aggregate variables, 60, 278-79n3, 281n20
> -case study method, 24-25
> -causality, 153-54
> -classification of states, 279n5
> -and crime rates with other variables uncontrolled, 280-81n16
> -cross-sectional studies, 22-24, 273n3
> -cross-state studies, 151-52
> -determining gun ownership, 275n2
> -endogeneity problem, 22, 24-25, 146
> -endogenous and exogeneous, 272-73n2
> -polls, 276nn5, 7-8
> -regression analysis, 245-48
> -statistical significance, 248-49
> -surveys, 21
> -time-series studies, 22-24, 273n3
> -relation of crime and arrest rate, 275n26
>
> Now those terms are meaningless unless a) you're a statistician and/or b)
> you've read the book. Jack refuses to take the challenge to read the book.
> It might burst his bubble.
>
> z(ero) mentioned Dr. Arthur Kellerman. Here's Lott's description of his
> "study."
>
> Some cross-sectional studies have taken a different approach and used the
> types of statistical techniques found in medical case studies. Possibly the
> best know paper was done by Arthur Kellerman and his many co-authors, who
> purport to show that "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and
> independently associated with an increased risk of homicide." The data for
> this test consists of a "case sample" (444 homicides that occurred in the
> victim's homes in three counties) and a "control" group (388 "matched"
> individuals who lived near the deceased and were the same sex and race as
> well as the same age rage). After information was obtained from relatives
> of the homicide victim or the control subjects regarding such things as
> whether they owned a gun or had a drug or alcohol problem, these authors
> attempted to see if the probability of a homicide was correlated with the
> ownership of a gun.
>
> There are many problems with the Kellerman et al.'s paper that under-cut the
> misleading impression that victims were killed by the gun in the home. For
> example, they fail to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases
> could it be established that the "gun involved had been kept in the home."
> More important, the question posed by the authors cannot be tested properly
> using their chosen methodology because of the endogencity problem discussed
> earlier with respect to cross-sectional data.

See, this is why you shouldn't read Lott without skepticism. It rots
the brain. Once again the master of the fib (you have been keeping up
with the last few months' revelations about Lott and his lack of
truthfulness, haven't you?) misleads the reader.

Here is what Kellermann actually said:
"In 8 of the other 14 homicides, the investigating officer
specifically noted that the gun involved had been kept in the home."

To begin with, note the word 'other'. These were 14 homicide cases not
included in the study, because the proxy could not answer whether or
not the victim kept a gun in the home. As a general check, Kellermann
investigated these 14 cases, and found that in 8/14, 57%, the police
noted that not only was there a gun kept in the home, but it was the
gun used in the homicide. This would normally be interpreted as pretty
good confirmation of Kellermann's findings in the cases where the
proxies answered, which found that 45% of the homicide victims kept a
gun in the home; but if you wanted to pull a Lott, you would say 'Aha;
you have no proof that any of the other 436 homicides were committed
with the gun kept in the home!, thereby misleading people like you
into taking it a bit further and assuming that therefore, the murders
were mostly committed with guns from outside the home. Lott goes on to
claim that 'all or virtually all the homicide victims were killed by
weapons brought into their homes by intruders', but without any
evidence; since he has no more evidence than Kellermann has, this is
merely his unsupported opinion, which he is stating as though it were
fact. Typical Lott.

Of course, Lott fails to explain exactly why, in his opinion, murders
would be committed with guns from outside the home only in homes where
there were guns; why they would be committed with guns from outside
the home only by murderers who were familiar with the home and knew
there was a gun in the home and where it was stored; why they would be
committed with guns from outside the home more frequently in homes
where the gun was kept loaded, unlocked, or especially both; and why
no other kind of murder would be carried out more often in homes where
guns were kept, only shootings by 'intimates', using a gun which he
asserts was brought from outside the home. Odd; in houses where there
was no gun, murderers were less likely to bring in a gun to commit
murder than in houses where there was, would be Lott's assertion.
Normally, something like that would need at least a word of
explanation as to why you thought that very odd suggestion was the
correct explanation, rather than the simple explanation that the
murderer used the gun he knew was in the house; but Lott doesn't offer
any argument, and folks like you don't need any. Since you KNOW that
it couldn't possibly be the gun in the house that was used, therefore
no matter how convoluted the coincidence that led to murderers
bringing in their own guns only when there was a gun present, it must
be the true answer.

This is the problem with Lott's endogenicity problem; anybody with
half a brain can see that maybe people who feel they are at risk of
homicide, might buy a gun; and if they end up murdered, you would have
correlation without causation; or even reverse causation. But why is
it only true for shootings, by intimates? Aren't people who feel they
are at risk of a breakin, burglary, or home invasion buying a gun? And
why doesn't having a gun in the house affect the odds of getting
murdered by a knife, or a baseball bat, or strangulation? Why would it
be only people who are at risk of getting shot by a family member,
roommate, or other intimate that buy a gun?

Of course, endogenicity is less of a problem with Kellermann's study,
which uses case-control data, not cross-sectional data as Lott not
quite gets around to stating that it does (and therefore not quite
lies); case-control data is an improvement on cross-sectional data
(which is the type of data Lott's study uses) precisely because it
examines the individual casesa, nd therefore, you can indeed make
judgements on the relative believability of the various explanations
for the correlation, as I am doing here. More later.

Conversely, if the people bought the gun because they felt they needed
protection against getting murdered, why aren't they protected? If you
believe this theory, then the gun obviously isn't effective protection
against a murderer armed with a gun, but why aren't there fewer
murders by knife, or baseball bat, or strangulation in the homes who
bought a gun, especially if they did so because they felt at risk and
were not only armed, but also alert, compared to the houses with no
guns? Lott doesn't have anything to say on that subject. To summarize
the Lott theory; people who are at risk will buy a gun, but only if
they are at risk for being shot by an intimate, no other type of
weapon or murderer; and the gun is not only ineffective at protecting
against being shot by an intimate, it is also ineffective at
protecting against any other kind of weapon or murderer. All this to
avoid having to concede that maybe, just maybe, a domestic fight in a
house with an unlocked loaded gun will occasionally lead to a fatal
shooting.

Me, I take the simple route; if you tell me that people who have a gun
in the house are more often shot by somebody who would know where the
gun is, particularly when it is kept unlocked and loaded, and that
there is no other effect on the risk of murder by any other kind of
weapon or killer; and that furthermore, in 8/14 cases where it was
checked, the gun used was the gun in the house, I'm going to say I'm
pretty sure the gun used was the gun in the house more often than not,
and I will even take a wild guess and say that these are not
premeditated. Lott manages to convince you of the exact opposite;
would be a good trick, except his sleight of hand is so transparent.

As promised, back to Lott's endogenicity problem with cross-sectional
data; does the word chutzpah ring a bell? As I explained above,
Kellermann's study is case-control, not cross-sectional, and as such
offers information with which to evaluate and choose between the
various explanations for the correlation. Lott's study, however, is in
fact the classic cross-sectional data; here are various populations,
here are the numbers of guns in each population, here are the numbers
of crimes in each population, therefore the 'more guns' must cause the
'fewer crimes'. There's a correlation, thgerefore it has to be cause
and effect. No information on the individual cases, therefore no
information as to what, if any, are the details of the connection
between the gun frequency and the crime frequency. Apparently Lott had
not thought of the endogenicity problem when he did his work, only
when he read Kellermann, and then he got it backwards.

And many many many people have suggested that there are indeed many
and various factors that account for Lott's correlation other than his
'more guns less crime' suggestion; for instance that the peak in crime
rate is high enough that people think a change in the gun laws might
be worth a try; that the drop in crack cocaine use over the period of
the study is responsible for the drop in crime; that the Mariel
boatlift of hardened criminals from Cuba might be responsible for the
initial high rate of crime at the beginning of his study, which then
decayed back to normal given a few years; etc. We have no way to check
on the relative believability of any of these competing hypotheses
given Lott's cross-sectional data. But the endogenicity problem goes
away when you KNOW what the answer HAS to be beforehand, doesn't it?
It's only the rest of us infidels who refuse to be convinced.

>
> ----
>
> In other words, bad science.
>
> Here are some more, less kind, evaluations of Kellerman's "study."
>
> http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/read5.html

That old poop? It deserves its own reply.

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:54:46 PM6/30/03
to

"Ktreemn" <ktr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030630130121...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> >Foxbat"
>
> >> I agree with my friend's CCC. The catapulted carcus concept as
developed
> >by the
> >> Carthagenians has been used with great success for centuries.
> >> (It also combats encroaching bermuda.)
> >>
> >
> >Carthagenians: dudes from Carthage
> >
> >Damn, you mean Al Gore invented the Internet AND the catapult?
>
> His ancestors. Had Al not been too civilized to mention, in the debates,
> georgie's AWOL,

Not proven

> business failures,

Gore dropping out of two universities ...

>daddy connections

Oh, SENATOR Albert Gore Sr. didn't have any connections? Do de name Armond
Hammer ring a bell?

> and the fact that georgie is an IDIOT;

Definately NOT proven and when compared to real idiots like yourself, he's
Albert Einstein.


<Rest of lala idiocy snipped>

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 2:57:55 PM6/30/03
to

"Faye" <mfcra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X1_La.28707$3o3.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Adding horse thievery to the family heritage (more likely just one more
horse to a heritage that already existed).

z

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 5:59:48 PM6/30/03
to
"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<%B4La.5697$XE4....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> ----
>
> In other words, bad science.
>
> Here are some more, less kind, evaluations of Kellerman's "study."
>
> http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/read5.html

In our last program, we demonstrated why Lott is full of BS while
discussing Kellermann, above. If you missed it, check it out.
Meanwhile, as promised, why some more, less kind, evaluations of
Kellerman's "study." are easily dismissable.

You got 3 critics on the page, taking different potshots. One at a
time, then:

first
<http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-buckner.html>
Yes, underreporting of gun ownership by the no homicide group relative
to the homicide group would reduce the correlation. Kellermann points
that out himself. But it would take an additional 20% of the no
homicide group lying that they had no gun, over and above however many
of the homicide group who lied, to make the 'raw' risk (not the
multifactorial logistic regression) go away (but not yet demonstrate
any protective value for guns; that would take even more). Kellermann
finds some sources that support his position that the numbers are at
least accurate enough, Buckner has nothing other than the possibility
that they might not be.

Buckner points out that the control group actually recorded 35.8%
ownership whereas the homicide group reported 45.4% ownership, as
opposed to a national average of 48%. So, what are the possibilities?
Well, the control group might actually have had 10% lying about their
gun ownership, to make them equal with the homicide group. The control
group and the homicide group might actually both be equal to the
national average, so that 12.2% of the control group were lying. But
it's starting to strain things to assume with no evidence that 20% of
the control group were lying but none of the homicide group;
particularly when Buckner goes to great pains to explain what a
highrisk, highly criminal group the homicide group actually was. One
would expect such a group to be more likely to have guns than the
control, lower risk group; to be more likely to be legally barred from
owning guns; and to lie more often that they did not have guns, rather
than the reverse. Buckner's argument requires the famous 'law-abiding
citizens' to not only be much more frequently armed than criminals who
are actively conducting risky crimes, but also to lie that they do not
own guns, more frequently than the criminals do. Is that your opinion
of law-abiding gun owners? And this is just to establish that the guns
are not a risk factor; you'd have to go even further in the same
direction to prove that guns offer any protection.

Buckner mentions the high risk of the homicide group as though it
contradicts the finding of the presence of the gun as a risk factor;
but these risks are controlled for by the multivariate regression, as
Buckner actually knows and understands, since he then points out how
many of these factors were more important than guns. But this does not
mean that guns were not a risk; just that they were only the fourth
highest risk. Kellermann never said the presence of the gun was the
highest risk. For comparison, as Buckner mentions, guns were actually
a higher risk than having somebody with an arrest record in the house.
Is he saying that having a convicted felon in the house is no risk
factor for homicide, since he thinks the larger risk of having the gun
present is not? This is like saying it's not risky to drive drunk,
since driving in freezing rain on underinflated bald tires is a bigger
risk.

So, while Buckner would be correct in stating that Kellermann hasn't
formally proved his case in the mathematical sense, against the theory
that law-abiding gunowners tend to lie more often than criminals, he
is stretching it when he says the study is 'seriously flawed', and he
is just blowing hot air when he says 'the conclusions were driven more
by ideology than research'. Kellermann's conclusions come
straightforwardly out of the data. Ironically, it's that last little
ad hominem dig that Buckner couldn't refrain from tossing in that
shows that it's his conclusions that are driven by something other
than logical analysis, not Kellermann.

Buckner also tosses in this little paragraph of lies and
irrelevancies:

'They conducted their research by limiting their cases to people
murdered in their own homes, thus excluding any instances where
intruders were killed by the homeowner. They did not ask the victim's
proxy (from whom they got their data about the victim and his or her
household) whether or not the victim had previously defended
him/herself with a gun. Thus their conclusion that a gun provides no
protective benefit flows from their failure to consider cases where it
might have.'

The first sentence is a lie, and irrelevant. He states that they
excluded any instances were intruders were killed by the homeowner.
This is obviously completely false; if the homeowner died, that was a
homicide for the homeowner, if the homeowner lived because he killed
the intruder, that was a nonhomicide for the homeowner; the life or
death of the assailant was never in question either way. The only
question is: did the gun make it more likely or less likely that the
owner survived? It's more than misleading for Buckner to state that
cases including the death of the assailant were not counted by
Kellermann's methodology, it's a lie.

He states that Kellermann did not ask the victim's proxy whether the
victim had previously defended him/herself with a gun. That's true,
but also irrelevant, for the same reason; the gun owner is either a
homicide victim or he is not, as is the nongunowner, and the rates at
which they are both murdered are compared, without worrying about
their histories.

Buckner then states that Kellermann's conclusion that the gun provides
no protective benefit is from failing to consider cases where it might
have. This is again, false, to the point of silliness. Any overall
protective value of the gun will show up if there were more gun owners
who were alive than gunowners who were homicide victims, compared to
nongunowners, no matter how the gun worked its magic. How could it not
show up? That's the meaning of protective benefit, more of those
people are protected from being dead.

It's not a hard concept. If you give a 6 year old two bags of jelly
beans, and he pulls out 10 from each bag, and from the first bag he
pulls 3 red and 7 black, and from the second bag he pulls 3 black and
7 red, most kids will tell you that they think there are a higher
percentage of black in the first bag than the second. And they'd be
most likely correct, despite Buckner complaining that they failed to
consider cases where there were more red jelly beans in the first bag.
His objection is just exactly as absurd as that.

Second:
<http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kellerman-schaffer.html>
Schaffer states that case control studies can't prove cause/effect,
only association. This is of course, true, and frequently mentioned by
critics of the paper; it isn't hard to figure out, since it is pointed
out by Kellermann himself in the paper. It is, of course, the same
argument used by tobacco companies to defend against the case control
studies associating smoking with cancer. There were even suggestions
that pre-cancerous conditions drove people to crave cigarettes.

Of course, it would be just as impossible to prove a cause/effect
relationship between guns and homicide in the home as it is to prove
such a relationship between cigarettes and cancer, in the formal
logical sense of proof. All you can do is provide a preponderance of
evidence; a correlation, a plausible mechanism, reasons why reverse
causation is less plausible, some indication of exposure correlating
with risk. In cases where the outcome is death, it is generally
frowned upon to do the gold-standard in studies, the prospective
cohort study, where you take several million people at random and
assign them to be gunowners or not (or smokers or not), then come back
in a few years and see who survived. So we're left with the
case-control as the best available tool.

Schaffer states that the paper has been widely quoted as demonstrating
a causal relationship, but that it doesn't in fact go that far, but
uses 'suggestive language'. OK, I guess; I'm not sure what he means,
these are not standardized research terms.

Schaffer then brings up his major point, related to Lott's
endogenicity argument: that a spurious correlation can be demonstrated
if there are two subpopulations of differing risk and differing gun
ownership rates; in other words, that the correlation between gun
ownership and homicide risk might be totally explainable if there are
two completely separate subpopulations, for instance criminals who own
guns and get shot, and good folks who do neither. That seems
intuitively obvious, and in fact he is completely correct about that,
if only it were true in this study. He shows how combining data from a
small low risk group and a large high risk group, in both of which
there is no effect of gun ownership whatsoever, can give a spurious
correlation, with an odds ratio of 2.0.

This, however is a good example of using statistics deceptively. His
example uses a gun ownership rate of 50% in the high risk group, and
only 25% in his low risk group. This difference in rates is absolutely
essential to the generation of the false correlation. If you change
the gun ownership rate to 50%, in low and high risk groups, the
spurious correlation entirely disappears. And in fact, Kellermann's
data shows that every subgroup has an overall gun ownership rate of
between 38 and 43%, contradicting Schaffer's suggestion that there is
a particular subgroup that has a lot of guns and gets killed more
often. Subjects with someone at home with an arrest record owned a gun
41% of the time, those with no arrest record 39% of the time. Anyone
at home who uses drugs; 38% own a gun, those with no drug users at
home have 41% gun ownership. Have a domestic violence history: 43% own
a gun, those who don't, 40% own a gun. There is no correlation between
risk factors and gun ownership rates in the population studied, which
makes Schaffer's discussion of spurious associations completely
irrelevant to this paper. The argument that a highrisk heavily armed
subpopulation is responsible for the entire association could be true
for some other population, but it would be obvious from looking at the
data; and it is obviously not the case in this study.

In fact, examining the data, checking the gun ownership and homicide
rates of all the various subgroups Kellermann has; broken down by
race, by arrest record yes or no, by drug use yes or no, by history of
violence yes or no, etc., we see that in every one of Kellermann's
subgroups, the effect is seen, although the effect strength varies;
whether you choose old or young, black or white, male or female, drug
users or not, arrest record or not, violent history or not; or with
respect to the particulars of the crime: forced entry or not,
resistance attempted or not; or any combination thereof, in no
subgroup does Schaffer's objection appear relevant in the slightest
degree. In all subgroups, the presence of the gun in the house is a
risk factor, never a protective factor. This very effectively destroys
the myth of a high risk of home invasions, hot burglaries, etc. where
the residents of the house can save themselves if and only if they
have a gun present. This is just not seen, neither for violent
felonious drug dealers, nor for law-abiding citizens, or anyone in
between.

I note that there is a calculation error in this section; it does not
affect Schaffer's logic, but its persistence through several
generations makes me wonder if any of the folks who quote this page
and/or repost it have ever bothered to attempt to follow the logic
themselves rather than just take it as an article of faith.

Then Schaffer switches gears and criticizes the manner of choosing
controls for socioeconomic factors by neighborhood, via random walk.
He is correct in stating
that Kellermann describes the process without quantifying exactly how
far each control house is from the corresponding case, and also is
correct in stating that the granularity of whatever is trying to be
measured here is unknown; risk of domestic violence obviously varies
from house to house, not just neighborhood by heighborhood. However,
this is a standard, accepted methodology used in other studies (not
gun related) to attempt to control for a lot of factors that are
otherwise not addressed. In the absence of other methodologies that
control for these factors more closely, this must stand as the best
available method. Schaffer, of course, suggests no other
methodologies, let alone any better ones.

Furthermore, any factors that are not perfectly cancelled out by the
control
selection process are identified and adjusted for by the mathematical
model building, via multivariate regression. Therefore, the results
show an extremely large risk of homicide from a prior history of
domestic violence; so indeed, Schaffer is quite correct that this
factor is not completely controlled for by the random walk control
selection; but it is equally obvious that the risk from this factor is
being detected and accounted for by the regression separately from the
risk of having a gun present, and that it is not therefore confounding
the results.

Then Schaffer repeats his highrisk/lowrisk analysis again, using the
same example where the highrisk group has twice as many guns as the
lowrisk group, which we've already seen is irrelevant to this data. He
discusses the possibility Buckner suggests, discussed above, that some
of the responses to the survey might be lies. Again, he has no
evidence that any lying is frequent enough, and confined tightly
enough to the law-abiding control group, to make a difference.

Finally, he brings up the question of selection and response bias.
Only 71.2%
of the total 444 homicides actually ended up with a matched control
and all survey questions answered for both case and control. He feels
that's a low number and could leave room for bias. Well, 71.2% is a
quite respectiable return from the raw data, not an unusual number,
but aside from that, how likely is it that there is bias? Certainly if
all 28.8% of the cases that were excluded were a fatality with no gun,
or were a control who had a gun and did not die, that would neutralize
Kellermann's results. Is it possible? Let's see. 4% (all % calculated
from the original 444) were dropped because they were double murders.
Is there some reason to expect double murders would not be gun owners?
Unless somebody comes up with one, I'll call that a wash. Another 1
percent dropped because the data was not available, or got changed
after the study started. Again, unless somebody knows why the data
would not be available more often for people without guns, no evidence
of bias. This leaves the 420 who were described in table 1, without
generating any suspicion of bias.

Another 3% dropped because no proxies available to give data about the
cases. The paper says these did not differ from the rest in the crime
details, though: race, sex, age, or homicide by firearm or not. So,
again, unless somebody has a reason why they would be all not
gunowners.... Another 4% gone because there wasn't a control; nobody
in the neighborhood matched by race, age, and sex. Again, any reason
why these would all be nongunowners? We're now at the 388 paired
case-controls described in table 2 and 3, with no 'smoking gun' of
bias. Now, 16% get dropped in one cut because the multivariate
modeling used to adjust for history of violence, arrest, etc. requires
all these data points to be filled in. That leaves the 316 in table 4,
the 71.2% Schaffer is talking about. Is there some reason that people
with missing variables would be biased?

But we have some internal checks for bias in data selection. Note that
the crude odds ratios in table 3 calculated with the 388 (87%) of the
total raw data are consistent with the modeled odds calculated with
the 316 (71%). So, there isn't any bias creeping in in that last
missing 16%. Now we're down to suspecting just that first 13% of the
raw data dropped on the way to tables 3 and 4, and room for enough
bias to skew things is getting damn tight. You would have to postulate
just about 100% bias in the double murders, cases where data was not
available or changed or no proxies were available who could answer
questions about the deceased, or no comparable controls were
available; and so far there is no reason to suspect even a slight
bias, nor any external evidence or coherent theory why that would be
so, let alone a nearly complete bias. So, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, Kellermann passes on this one too.

third:
<http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/schulman-kellerman.html>
Schulman starts off by mentioning Kellermann's 1993 study, then drops
it and immediately launches into a discussion of the limitations of
the 1986 study which are not relevant to the 1993 study (which, if you
haven't noticed, is what we are discussing). It's all very nice that
Schulman can see the flaws in the early work now that the improved
version is out, but why is he telling us about them now, when in fact
Kellermann's 1993 study does
'include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or
frightened
away by the use or display of a firearm.'
and
'Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house
known
to be armed'
by its very design, as we discussed in connection with Buckner? One
more time: if there are some cases where the homicidal intruders do
not actually intrude because of the firearm, then there will be fewer
homicides in the houses with the firearms. Or where they intrude but
are frightened away, etc. Or if the presence of the gun prevents a
homicide in any way, whatsoever, the homicide rate will be lower for
gunowners. That is the whole point of the 93 study, it's not just a
duplicate of the 86 study. The 1993 study involved expensive and
difficult house to house canvassing to get to the bottom of these
questions.

So after showing off his erudition by complaining about the 1986
study, does Schulman go on to say that 'But the 1993 study doesn't
have these limitations'? No, he just drops it. A little misdirection
and sleight of hand there, but lying by omission to imply a false
conclusion is still lying. If you believe that cases where intruders
either avoid a house known to be armed, or are wounded or frightened
away by a gun, are not counted in a table of 'homicide victim, yes or
no' vs. 'gun owner, yes or no', then Schulman has successfully
confused you.

The rest of his article manages to hit the trifecta of fallacies. He
complains 'Another problem is that by relying on a case study of
households with homicide victims Kellermann is looking at almost twice
as many black households as white'. In other words, Kellermann's study
of homicide victims vs. non-victims is invalid because his homicide
victims are homicide victims. As Kellermann said once, he did not
choose the victims, just counted them afterwards. Schulman raises
similar complaints about social dysfunction among the victims. I
wonder who Schulman thinks we are supposed to be studying? Homicide
rates among people who are not actually homicide victims? He also
manages to completely ignore the process of firstly choosing a control
for each specific homicide that matched that household on several
parameters, then secondly isolating individual causal factors by
logistic regression. At any rate, if Schulman has a problem with the
preponderance of African American homicide victims, despite the fact
that they are the people most at risk, he can feel free to examine
only the white victims, where, as discussed above, he will find the
same qualitative results, i.e. that the gun is a risk factor, not a
protective factor. The same for the social dysfunction markers, as
discussed above. And in fact, he knows this, since he quotes
Kellermann 'We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun
ownership in any subgroup', with no discussion.

Then he tries to suggest reverse causation, but stubs his toe very
badly. 'Wouldn't logic tell us that the risk of dying as a result of
falling from an airplane would be far greater by those people who fall
from airplanes who don't have a parachute handy?' Yes, it would. And
that is what the data shows, confirming our logic. Similarly,
Schulman's logic presumably tells him that the risk of dying as a
result of being shot would be far greater by those people who don't
have a gun handy; but, unlike jumping out of a plane with no
parachute, the data do not show that, they show the exact opposite.
Normally, when your beliefs contradict real-world data, it's time to
adjust your beliefs; but apparently Schulman believes that what
Kellermann is saying may be true in reality, but it does not accord
with his theory and therefore must be disregarded.

And again, back to the 'didn't study households where the gun
prevented the homicide without killing the bad guy' fallacy. Can
anyone either demonstrate that Kellermann restricted the non-victims
to ones where the bad guy was killed, or explain how gunowners scaring
away all the bad guys from their houses would not affect the homicide
rate of the gunowners? If not, why does this absurdity keep coming up?

Then he ventures deeply into religious territory; the inability to
explain this mystery he ascribes to the deep understanding possessed
only by the high priesthood, criminologists. 'Dr. Kellermann can't
study such questions because these are the proper focus not of medical
doctors, but of criminologists.' Of course, Schulman himself is quite
qualified to discuss this matter, as a 'Los Angeles novelist,
screenwriter, and journalist', so we can amend his statement to read
that the proper study of risk factors related to homicide is
restricted to criminologists, novelists, screenwriters, and
journalists, but not epidemiologists. Unfortunately, Schulman's
demonstrated inability to understand how this study, by its very basic
nature, includes ANY and ALL ways in which the gun prevents the
homicide immediately identifies him as someone who is not qualified
disqualifies him from commenting on the study, let alone on who is
qualified to carry out such a study.

Surprisingly enough, in the end Schulman basically admits that he gets
it.
'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less
likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes
usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of
murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have
a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone
whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out
if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is
yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it
faster than he or she can.'

Which is esentially the takehome message from Kellermann's study,
summarized very nicely. Schulman obviously admits that a handgun is a
risk factor for domestic homicides but he just doesn't want to mention
the third possibile solution: don't buy a handgun if all you want is
to protect yourself from being murdered in your home by strangers,
because home is where you are far less likely to be murdered by a
stranger; and if you have a gun around for other purposes, you're
better off keeping it locked and unloaded when at home than ready for
instant use by by anyone who feels the impulse.

Heck, Schulman sums it up so well, I'll repeat it:
'What this adds up to is that while home is where you are far less
likely to be murdered by a stranger - not surprising since homes
usually have locks to keep such people out - the great majority of
murders that do take place at home are at the hands of those who have
a key. The caution here might well be that if you live with someone
whom you think might possibly murder you, you might want to move out
if they also keep a loaded handgun. Or, if the loaded handgun is
yours, you might want to keep it somewhere where you can get to it
faster than he or she can.'
-Schulman, agreeing with Kellermann while trying not to.

Kent Finnell

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 6:19:54 PM6/30/03
to

"z" <gzuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4685f.0306...@posting.google.com...

Typical z(ero), bringing in "seceret, previously omitted" information.

I bought a gun because I'm afraid of a family member or "other intimate"?
Bullshit, z, total, absolute bullshit.

I once knew a mechanic who lived in a fairly isolated house with a detatched
garage where he kept expensive tools and sometimes did after hours work.
Sometimes he worked at the day job late at night. He had a handgun in every
room in his house, just in case his wife needed it. He also had two
children. They never touched the weapons. No was was ever shot in his
home. Now even I consider his actions extreme, but no harm was done. Now
according to you and Kellerman, he, his wife, and the two kids should be
dead or in jail. There were at least 8 handguns in that home (I never
checked the bathrooms), not counting what was in the garage.


>
> >
> > ----
> >
> > In other words, bad science.
> >
> > Here are some more, less kind, evaluations of Kellerman's "study."
> >
> > http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/read5.html
>
> That old poop? It deserves its own reply.

So here's z(ero), trying to explain away why there aren't more murders
caused by the "evil rays" coming from every firearm in private hands. If
there are 2.7 more murders in homes with firearms (approximately 68 million
households), why aren't there more than 13-15,000 murders annually?

You and Kellerman are liars. He did it for grant money. What's your
excuse? Why do you want to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of
Rights? You've already proven yourself a coward. What's your agenda?

But I'm sure you'll continue to hide behind your keyboard and computer
screen.

You want to remove the Second Amendment? The mechanism is there, have at
it. Grow the Brady Campaign, the VPC, PAX, whatever anti-liberty group you
want. As soon as the combined membership exceeds 4 million, report back
here.

Ktreemn

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 9:47:16 PM6/30/03
to
>Kent Finnell"

>> His ancestors. Had Al not been too civilized to mention, in the debates,
>> georgie's AWOL,
>
>Not proven
>

Nothing is ever proven to you.
You are just a series of unsubstantiated opinions. : ) Lala

jakdedert

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 10:45:20 PM6/30/03
to
Well z; Kent....

Seems like z made his argument with facts, figures and independant analysis;
whereas you make yours with...'bullshit.'

You can't even explain the results of the study ypu're touting beyond 'it
must be true.' z gives a very thorough independant explanation.

I have to admit that I thought z's first post was reaching out for data
where possibly none existed, and that his assumptions could well be
spurious. However, when he got to the meat of the data, he's very
convincing.

Care to explain exactly how Lott came up with his numbers now, Kent? It's
what several of us have been asking you to do, but you refuse by saying it's
too complicated. Yeah it's complicated...so complicated that you, yourself,
don't understand it; but you continue to believe in it...when your own
common sense should tell you different.

Again, Kent: How in hell could there be three DGU's for every OGU?

A: There can't be....

jak

"Kent Finnell" <kent...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:zz2Ma.13023$gu6....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...

Boston Blackie

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 10:57:06 PM6/30/03
to
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:56:47 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !XV(:1k-W-FdBih&8#ruD%h&s (Encoded at Airnews!)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)

In article <up6Ma.4889$At...@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>,
"jakdedert" <jde...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Care to explain exactly how Lott came up with his numbers now, Kent? It's
> what several of us have been asking you to do, but you refuse by saying it's
> too complicated. Yeah it's complicated...so complicated that you, yourself,
> don't understand it; but you continue to believe in it...when your own
> common sense should tell you different.

that's what we call 'faith.'

:{)

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages