Re: More on Guns
Russ Anderson
Subject: Re: Re: Guns - People with Rage
interesting that folk who own guns are 22% more likely to injuried with a
gun. And folks that have guns for "protection" are 75% more likely to be
injured by their own gun than by the supposed bad guys they are protecting
themselves from.<<<
Ok Lynda.. so on the 22%, that would be like saying that those who don't own
cars will be less likely to be injured by them? Or those who don't kitchen
knives will be less likely to cut themselves with one? (Also automatic
weapons are already banned.)
And I don't know where you found your statistics.. but here is what I found.
Self-Defense -- In a landmark survey, criminologist Gary Kleck found that
handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm uses.
Analyzing Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Kleck found that people who use
firearms to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than
people who use other or noprotective methods. Protection method and percents
of individuals injured included: Used gun -- 17.4%, Used knife-- 40.3%, Used
other weapon -- 22.0%, Used physical force -- 50.8%, Tried to get help,
frighten offender -- 48.9%, Threatened, reasoned with offender -- 30.7%,
Nonviolent resistance, (including evasion) -- 34.9%, Other measures --
26.5%, Any self-protection -- 38.2%, No self-protection -- 24.7%. Kleck also
found that "at most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender
taking a gun away from the victim," including instances in which burglars
stealing guns from homes are confronted by homeowners armed with other guns.
we don't put rules on the books that will make a difference. Folks who sell
guns illegally get a slap on the wrist, so why should they care if they are
providing guns to gang members and bad guys. The number of illegal guns
coming over the borders is enormous! Deal with that.<<
True. And every free American has the responsibility of being the watch dog
of their government..if that government is not enforcing the laws. If the
police and judges aren't doing their jobs, then its time to have them
removed.
Some of those guns have been traced through 3 or 4 criminal acts after being
sold by police departments!<<
As long as they are selling them legally and not selling to criminals.. then
what's the problem?
that bought them to protect themselves and then they were stolen. Folks
don't do enough to keep guns safe and that includes safe from theft.<<
How do you know this is the real origin?
So do we ban all guns?.. the criminals will still obtain them somehow. As
for me and my family we want the option of being able to defend ourselves.
Julie
>>>Wellllll, I don't think anyone needs automatic weapons or handguns. Itis
interesting that folk who own guns are 22% more likely to injuried with a
gun. And folks that have guns for "protection" are 75% more likely to be
injured by their own gun than by the supposed bad guys they are protecting
themselves from.<<<
Ok Lynda.. so on the 22%, that would be like saying that those who don't own
cars will be less likely to be injured by them? Or those who don't kitchen
knives will be less likely to cut themselves with one? (Also automatic
weapons are already banned.)
And I don't know where you found your statistics.. but here is what I found.
Self-Defense -- In a landmark survey, criminologist Gary Kleck found that
handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm uses.
Analyzing Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Kleck found that people who use
firearms to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than
people who use other or noprotective methods. Protection method and percents
of individuals injured included: Used gun -- 17.4%, Used knife-- 40.3%, Used
other weapon -- 22.0%, Used physical force -- 50.8%, Tried to get help,
frighten offender -- 48.9%, Threatened, reasoned with offender -- 30.7%,
Nonviolent resistance, (including evasion) -- 34.9%, Other measures --
26.5%, Any self-protection -- 38.2%, No self-protection -- 24.7%. Kleck also
found that "at most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender
taking a gun away from the victim," including instances in which burglars
stealing guns from homes are confronted by homeowners armed with other guns.
>>One of the problems with guns is that we don't enforce the laws we haveAND
we don't put rules on the books that will make a difference. Folks who sell
guns illegally get a slap on the wrist, so why should they care if they are
providing guns to gang members and bad guys. The number of illegal guns
coming over the borders is enormous! Deal with that.<<
True. And every free American has the responsibility of being the watch dog
of their government..if that government is not enforcing the laws. If the
police and judges aren't doing their jobs, then its time to have them
removed.
>>AND, I won't shout but really want to, what about IDIOT police departmentsthat take the guns they have confiscated and then turn around and sell them!
Some of those guns have been traced through 3 or 4 criminal acts after being
sold by police departments!<<
As long as they are selling them legally and not selling to criminals.. then
what's the problem?
>>Also, the real origin of lots of guns used by the bad guys is the samefolks
that bought them to protect themselves and then they were stolen. Folks
don't do enough to keep guns safe and that includes safe from theft.<<
How do you know this is the real origin?
So do we ban all guns?.. the criminals will still obtain them somehow. As
for me and my family we want the option of being able to defend ourselves.
Julie
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Anderson" <anderclan@...>
> Ok Lynda.. so on the 22%, that would be like saying that those who don't
own
> cars will be less likely to be injured by them?
***No, you would have to relate it to not only owning but riding in because
the ratio of injury to ownership is not as relevant as the injury to
occupancy.
Or those who don't kitchen
> knives will be less likely to cut themselves with one?
***Wellll, the stats on kitchen knives is that you are less likely to be
injured by a sharp knive than a dull knive <g> Those numbers I have as we
owned a butcher shop and I did safety seminars.
(Also automatic
> weapons are already banned.)
***Accuracy, please, or the honesty police will get you <g> Some automatic
weapons are banned. There are many loops holes in the laws and each state
has their own version.
>
> And I don't know where you found your statistics.. but here is what I
found.
> Self-Defense -- In a landmark survey, criminologist Gary Kleck found that
> handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm
uses.
> Analyzing Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Kleck found that people who
use
> firearms to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured
than
> people who use other or noprotective methods.
*** This statement is an oxymoron. If one was not being attacked or
injured, why would one be defending oneself and filling out a Crime
Victimization Survey?
Protection method and percents
> of individuals injured included: Used gun -- 17.4%, Used knife-- 40.3%,
Used
> other weapon -- 22.0%, Used physical force -- 50.8%, Tried to get help,
> frighten offender -- 48.9%, Threatened, reasoned with offender -- 30.7%,
> Nonviolent resistance, (including evasion) -- 34.9%, Other measures --
> 26.5%, Any self-protection -- 38.2%, No self-protection -- 24.7%.
***These stats are worthless. They are only relevant if the "victims" were
in the same set of circumstances.
Kleck also
> found that "at most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender
> taking a gun away from the victim," including instances in which burglars
> stealing guns from homes are confronted by homeowners armed with other
guns.
***This disagrees with the stats that the various police agencies have
compiled.
>
<snip>
> >>AND, I won't shout but really want to, what about IDIOT police
departments
> that take the guns they have confiscated and then turn around and sell
them!
> Some of those guns have been traced through 3 or 4 criminal acts after
being
> sold by police departments!<<
>
> As long as they are selling them legally and not selling to criminals..
then
> what's the problem?
*** One of the problems is that some of these guns were not legal to begin
with. Another problem is that obviously the folks they are supplying are
selling the guns illegally. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that
if you sell a confiscated gun on January 1 and on March 1 it is in the hands
of a "bad guy" and then you resell the gun and 3 to 6 months later it is
again confiscated from a "bad guy" and this continues to happen, then "you"
as the policing agency are doing something wrong.
>
> >>Also, the real origin of lots of guns used by the bad guys is the same
> folks
> that bought them to protect themselves and then they were stolen. Folks
> don't do enough to keep guns safe and that includes safe from theft.<<
>
> How do you know this is the real origin?
*** Gun "x," "y" or "z" is reported stolen in a home burglary. Same gun is
later confiscated in a crime. That is simple dot to dot with the numbers
being that 3 to 4 out of every 5 Saturday night specials that are
confiscated have been reported stolen.
> So do we ban all guns?.. the criminals will still obtain them somehow. As
> for me and my family we want the option of being able to defend ourselves.
*** No, you don't ban all guns but you do make folks responsible for their
own actions AND that includes the folks that buy guns for "protection." If
you buy a gun and it is stolen and someone is harmed by that weapon, then
the owner should bear some of the burden of guilt!
Also, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please) in a
logical manner why some folks are so against the waiting period and the
requirement that you prove you can use the blooming things AND why they are
so up in arms about the laws against automatic weapons. The only purpose in
the world for an automatic weapon is to kill someone.
Lynda>
[email protected]
<< It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out. . . >>
<< That is simple dot to dot. . .>>
<< This statement is an oxymoron.>>
<<These stats are worthless.>>
<<This disagrees with the stats that the various police agencies have
compiled.>>
<<Also, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please) ...>>
Rhetoric police, ma'am.
Do you know why I pulled you over?
Please try not to add anger to a situation already fraught with guns.
Sandra
<< That is simple dot to dot. . .>>
<< This statement is an oxymoron.>>
<<These stats are worthless.>>
<<This disagrees with the stats that the various police agencies have
compiled.>>
<<Also, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please) ...>>
Rhetoric police, ma'am.
Do you know why I pulled you over?
Please try not to add anger to a situation already fraught with guns.
Sandra
Lynda
Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run this
list as one of your classes. You might also take a closer look at the
e-mail in question as "the reponse is" not "general and to the topic."
You assume, probably because that is where you come from, that anger was
involved or would become envolved. And, if you taught English, then you
know what "yellow rag journalism tactics" are and really should refrain from
using them.
You should also know what an oxymoron is and thus should know that the
statement given by the statistition was an oxymoron. AND, that the
statement was not aimed at a list member. Thus, you know that pulling that
part of the e-mail to illustrate your "lesson" to the "class" was
ineffective as it negates the balance by not being representative of what
you were trying to demonstrate and merely looks petty and nitpicky.
Also, while the first two examples may qualify as rhetroic, the balance only
do if you use selective quoting, ie. yellow-rag journalism. And again, even
the first two are a stretch as each was qualified. To fit the definition
each statement would have had to be simply dropped into the "conversation"
and left by itself without regard to supporting facts or qualifiers.
You then go on to say in another e-mail that you "address concepts and
statements, NOT people." Not quite the truth as when the pronoun "you" is
used, it is to a specific person, not a concept or idea.
Lynda
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run this
list as one of your classes. You might also take a closer look at the
e-mail in question as "the reponse is" not "general and to the topic."
You assume, probably because that is where you come from, that anger was
involved or would become envolved. And, if you taught English, then you
know what "yellow rag journalism tactics" are and really should refrain from
using them.
You should also know what an oxymoron is and thus should know that the
statement given by the statistition was an oxymoron. AND, that the
statement was not aimed at a list member. Thus, you know that pulling that
part of the e-mail to illustrate your "lesson" to the "class" was
ineffective as it negates the balance by not being representative of what
you were trying to demonstrate and merely looks petty and nitpicky.
Also, while the first two examples may qualify as rhetroic, the balance only
do if you use selective quoting, ie. yellow-rag journalism. And again, even
the first two are a stretch as each was qualified. To fit the definition
each statement would have had to be simply dropped into the "conversation"
and left by itself without regard to supporting facts or qualifiers.
You then go on to say in another e-mail that you "address concepts and
statements, NOT people." Not quite the truth as when the pronoun "you" is
used, it is to a specific person, not a concept or idea.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: More on Guns
>
> << It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out. . . >>
>
> << That is simple dot to dot. . .>>
>
> << This statement is an oxymoron.>>
>
> <<These stats are worthless.>>
>
> <<This disagrees with the stats that the various police agencies have
> compiled.>>
>
> <<Also, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please) ...>>
>
> Rhetoric police, ma'am.
> Do you know why I pulled you over?
>
> Please try not to add anger to a situation already fraught with guns.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 11:58:22 AM, lurine@... writes:
<< Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. >>
Prejudice!
I thought the responses were cheating kinds of arguments. And because the
post had contained a joke about the truth police (or some such), it was a
play on that.
Breathing is good. Humor is good.
Sandra
<< Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. >>
Prejudice!
I thought the responses were cheating kinds of arguments. And because the
post had contained a joke about the truth police (or some such), it was a
play on that.
Breathing is good. Humor is good.
Sandra
Laura M
This is really getting tiresome. There is so much anger on this list. It
seems to me that many of the posts sound like an argument between children,
"he said this...she said that". Could we all grow up a little bit and get on
with any subject other than bickering. It is one thing to discuss the
subject of honesty it is another to continually accuse someone of being
dishonest. I'm not trying to take sides. I know who I agree with, but don't
feel that it is pertinent. I also don't feel that this line of discussion
is beneficial to anyone on this list. It is divisive and unnecessary.
Laura
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
seems to me that many of the posts sound like an argument between children,
"he said this...she said that". Could we all grow up a little bit and get on
with any subject other than bickering. It is one thing to discuss the
subject of honesty it is another to continually accuse someone of being
dishonest. I'm not trying to take sides. I know who I agree with, but don't
feel that it is pertinent. I also don't feel that this line of discussion
is beneficial to anyone on this list. It is divisive and unnecessary.
Laura
>From: "Lynda" <lurine@...>_________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: More on Guns
>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:04:07 -0800
>
>Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
>explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
>break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run
>this
>list as one of your classes. You might also take a closer look at the
>e-mail in question as "the reponse is" not "general and to the topic."
>
>You assume, probably because that is where you come from, that anger was
>involved or would become envolved. And, if you taught English, then you
>know what "yellow rag journalism tactics" are and really should refrain
>from
>using them.
>
>You should also know what an oxymoron is and thus should know that the
>statement given by the statistition was an oxymoron. AND, that the
>statement was not aimed at a list member. Thus, you know that pulling that
>part of the e-mail to illustrate your "lesson" to the "class" was
>ineffective as it negates the balance by not being representative of what
>you were trying to demonstrate and merely looks petty and nitpicky.
>
>Also, while the first two examples may qualify as rhetroic, the balance
>only
>do if you use selective quoting, ie. yellow-rag journalism. And again,
>even
>the first two are a stretch as each was qualified. To fit the definition
>each statement would have had to be simply dropped into the "conversation"
>and left by itself without regard to supporting facts or qualifiers.
>
>You then go on to say in another e-mail that you "address concepts and
>statements, NOT people." Not quite the truth as when the pronoun "you" is
>used, it is to a specific person, not a concept or idea.
>
>Lynda
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <SandraDodd@...>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 7:23 AM
>Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: More on Guns
>
>
> >
> > << It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out. . . >>
> >
> > << That is simple dot to dot. . .>>
> >
> > << This statement is an oxymoron.>>
> >
> > <<These stats are worthless.>>
> >
> > <<This disagrees with the stats that the various police agencies have
> > compiled.>>
> >
> > <<Also, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please)
>...>>
> >
> > Rhetoric police, ma'am.
> > Do you know why I pulled you over?
> >
> > Please try not to add anger to a situation already fraught with guns.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> > Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
> >
> > Addresses:
> > Post message: [email protected]
> > Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> > List owner: [email protected]
> > List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
> >
> >
>
>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 1:58:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lurine@... writes:
<< Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run this
list as one of your classes >>
I am sorry, but I found your post offensive.
Candy
lurine@... writes:
<< Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run this
list as one of your classes >>
I am sorry, but I found your post offensive.
Candy
Lynda
Then delete.
Lynda
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <discovery6@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: More on Guns
> In a message dated 2/11/01 1:58:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> lurine@... writes:
>
> << Do I know why you pulled me over. Well, I do now thanks to your e-mail
> explaining that you were a teacher at a ps. Guess old habits are hard to
> break. Perhaps you could try extra hard and refrain from trying to run
this
> list as one of your classes >>
>
> I am sorry, but I found your post offensive.
> Candy
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 9:02:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lurine@... writes:
<< Then delete >>
I do but I have to open it to see what it is.
lurine@... writes:
<< Then delete >>
I do but I have to open it to see what it is.
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 9:02:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lurine@... writes:
<< Then delete >>
Or should I say to know what it is. Kind of worded the first one wrong
lurine@... writes:
<< Then delete >>
Or should I say to know what it is. Kind of worded the first one wrong
Dennis/Laurie Brown
I don't know if this counts as skipping the
paranoia or not...probably depends on your definition of paranoia.
I oppose such laws because I believe it
infringes on my personal right to bear arms. I believe the founding
fathers included those rights in order to help us protect all within our
society. The law was originally put into place to allow the average
citizen to protect himself/herself, family, property and country. The need
for personal protection has not gone away.
(here's the potential paranoia part), Waiting
periods and back ground checks leave lists 'lying' around somewhere which have
the potential to be used unlawfully against the gun owner. Hackers can
break into computer files and know just where to go to steal the gun of their
choice, for instance.
There is also the potential for the laws to be
changed 'allowing' the government to come in and take all guns at 'whim' or in
some politically correct situation (i.e. for the 'protection of society' all
guns must be turned in).
I'm not saying we are currently on the verge of
some cataclysmic societal or governmental breakdown. But we don't know
what the future may bring and once such laws are on the books it is hard to
reverse them.
What IF we have a war in our land? It
happens elsewhere, why not here (USA)? The military or the police will NOT
be able to be in all places to protect all people. We would be on our own
to take care of ourselves. I know it's a big 'what if' right now...but it
has happened here and there is no way to say it will never happen
again.
My two cents worth (and I probably owe someone
change!),
Eiraul
----- Original Message -----From: LyndaSent: February 10, 2001 10:11 PMSubject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: More on GunsAlso, can someone please explain to me (skip the paranoia, please) in a
logical manner why some folks are so against the waiting period and the
requirement that you prove you can use the blooming things AND why they are
so up in arms about the laws against automatic weapons. The only purpose in
the world for an automatic weapon is to kill someone.