Again, well said, No1son...
Printable View
Again, well said, No1son...
Fishingpox, you and several others seem to insist that unless we DROOL with LUST and thirst for blood spraying from the countless victims of our FULLY auto .50 cal twin mount M2 machine guns with completely empty ammo boxes having just spewwed several thousand rounds of graphite coated hollow point "cop killer" bullets with red hot barrels still smoking we`re "ANTI-GUN 'fudds" or what ever. DUDE, I OWN a shotgun AND a .45. Unlike the (deleted)s who apparently "need' the largest weapon of mass destruction or largest calibur artillery ever built for "home defense', I CAN SHOOT straight and DO NOT NEED to further enrich the gun companies you MUST own stock in. I would actually PREFERE to use a crossbow at point blank range...aim for the spine thru the throat with a broadhead and PROBLEM SOLVED...but then again, my next door neighbor would be in NO DANGER WHATSO EVER...I WOULDN`T BE ABLE to piss poor "justify" possibly ENDANGERING HIM and HIS FAMILY! Oh MY GOD...I`m "un AMERICAN"!!! I`m NOT FORCING MY BULLETS INTO HIS HOME, even "accidently"!!! FORGIVE ME...
Dude while you are aiming with a bow, you just got shot. I figured you were smarter than that. Too each their own, your seed won't be around long
You left out the findings of the research and only pick your talking points...So I will help you decipher the findings. See below if you understand "findings".........Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For an interesting paper on urban effects of being armed check out this one from The American Journal of Public Health
American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05)
times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among
gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted
odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05)."
The publications on the topic of this list are all over the place, with none of them being non-controversial. We can trade sources all day, and I expect I will still retain ownership of my hat.
I had both a 12 ga pump shotgun and a Colt woodsman .22 pistol when we moved into the core of Minneapolis, and divested of both of them to satisfy my wife, who like my rurally raised mother, was extremely uncomfortable having guns around the house when there were children, and have not regretted it for one instant. Never ever in my life, including successful neighborhood campaigns that chased out crack houses and a prostitution ring on my block over the past thirty years, have ever needed a gun for self-protection.
Ask Custer about that.... lol
BTW bows and arrows were among the most frequently banned weapons of war in the early States. Some of those laws are still on the books, IIRC.
The Dalai ROCKS!Quote:
One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.
But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
More like that you would personally watch me relief myself in it. I got something you can choke on and it aint no hat. Them Crows been keeping you awake at night no1son?Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
Yes, we can. I'll stick with this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics): John R. Lott Jr.: 9780226493664: Amazon.com: Books
Wow! a 12ga pump and a .22... Your just a modern day John Wayne.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
That's all one needs for home defense in a gated crack house communityQuote:
Originally Posted by PIGINTHEPIGPEN
For all their being "outdated' they are STILL front line equiptment for the US Navy SEAL teams, US Army Rangers and Delta Force, USMC Fleet Recon teams, British SAS and SBS, Royal Marine Commandos, the Israeli special forces teams, AND Russian "Spendetz' troops, but WHAT DO THEY KNOW, right? YOU KNOW MORE THAN ALL them...BTW ask this yr`s deer hunters more than 1/3rd of which who DID NOT use a GUN. Come break into MY house at night, FOOL...somthing might get STUCK in your "craw"...and I like the WIDER broadheads too...
True Pox, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishingpox
No worries Lowell, I was raised better than that. I would Never break into anyone's house. Never!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
For home defense I like 12 ga. 3inch magnum 00 buckshot. Gods thing my and my neighbors house are brick. Though I think we will all celebrate a good killQuote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
I like your choice in home defense. My choice also with extended tube to hold 8 rounds of stopping power. And if i have to use it there getting all 8Quote:
Originally Posted by fishingpox
Yep, cause I know my home , I'm shooting through walls, the Bastia won't get much of a chance. Though I could hide behind a wall a jump out and stick them in the eye with a broad head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big H trucking
I read the paper thoroughly and then did some background research and all the countries listed there have stringent gun control laws by US standards. Compared to the United States, they all group together, even Switzerland which requires guns for active duty and reserve military households but restricts ammunition severely and the purposes for which the guns may be used as well. The actual outlier was Russia which was and still is in a state of chaos following the breakup of the Soviet Union and is pretty much not comparable as a result to any of them.
Like I said before the additional research I found shows me that I can easily live with the gun control measures in those European nations with the most guns.
It is the article you cite that is cherry picking from the paper, that it references, which does not properly qualify its comparison sets in the first place, both completely ignoring any cultural difference between the nations involved and not relating that in the least to American culture which is dramatically different from all of them when it comes to guns and crime.
I read a lot of formal publications, I have a hard drive full of them, and the paper is a example of sloppy scholarship which is compounded by slanted reporting which is often the case when such extensions are made. FWIW I see that all the time in press releases for scientific papers, too, generally done in a very similar manner, which is why I got the original just as I do with the scientifically juried publications and read it through carefully, noting as I did that background for the sets used was not properly defined or qualified. I then confirmed that with independent sources. Sorry that paper is trash and the article about it is worse. The conclusion in the original paper is basically worthless. No positive commentary cannot possible exceed that quality level, and in fact there is nothing there to argue against either except that it is a waste of time, since it is so poorly done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane Pole
Far out there LT. Arrow thru the throat. Good imagination. You keep it loaded?
So the Harvard professors don't meet you self proclaimed high standards of research eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
Look Cane Pole if we are starting to trade papers then we are making some progress in talking to each other. Just be aware that I am experienced in that as well as knowing that there is no universally or generally accepted consensus on this in the United States, which is why there is a debate here that does not exist in nearly any other part of the world. We Americans have unique outlooks on the role of guns in society and somehow we will need to find some uniquely American solution.
#1, I will talk to (not at) anyone, even a card carrying union Yankee.
Keep it over the headboard with 3 bolts in the rack. Figure if the dog gives us even 30 seconds warning...btw have excellent night vision and used a crossbow to take several does at relatively long range (120- 140`) I also KNOW every squeeky board in the house is and the SO has fired the .45 and the 12 gauge in the dark before, am certain she`d do well. Would only worry about hitting the dog while the intruder was donating pieces and fingers to her...hence the crossbow with 12 guage "back up'. Pin `em to the wall with a solid THUD. Then call the cornoner...
Brother you kill the dog we going to have some problems....;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
PS I DO own several excellent quality GAS MASKS too...(evil laughter sound effect here...) let me SURPRISE you in the dark...hacking up a lung HURTS.
LOL
No professor automatically does. I claim the right as an American to make up my own mind, and I do, as often disagreeing with conclusions of professors in universities out of some half a dozen nations around the world as not on this point or that, but mostly in their own fields of study which the Harvard professors writing the paper your commentary cited are not in. Were they anthropologists or sociologists writing in their own juried journals instead of an opinionated piece in a law review, it would a different matter entirely, but then this paper wouldn't have gotten by juries for professional publication simply on procedural issues in the first place.
They didn't even bother to couch the paper in lawyer talk; so it is pretty obvious they weren't even writing it as professional lawyers or for a professional audience of any kind in the first place. It has all the markings of a propaganda plant, but then like I said before its really doesn't even have solid enough data to debate against in the first place.
FWIW a lot of pro-gun control propaganda is no better written or researched. So much smoke and so little actual fire in this American debate over guns and their place in our society. Anymore I take anything I read with a grain of salt, unless I can find some substance in it at all, and there is very little besides a very general agreement that there is a big problem, but not how to fix it. Pure emotion aint gonna fix this either, but it will drive the American people to take some action, and I really doubt you are going to like it, when it does.
A dog is a very good repellent to any house breaker. Also a very good first signal to prepare one's self for any who would brave it. It doesn't have to be big dog either; a feisty little rat terrier or a Jack Russell will do very nicely, and will almost automatically assume guard duty for the family home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Of course there was the bugler who broke into a house, and standing in the dark dining room heard a voice sing out "Jesus is watching you." The second time that happened he flashed a light around and watched the parrot in the corner repeat himself yet again.
The bugler laughed and said to the parrot, "And I suppose you are Jesus."
"No," answered the parrot. "I am Moses. Jesus is the doberman."
Surely you must have strained some brain neurons (doing all that ciphering) and have possibly caused a cerebral dyslexia if the statement "shall not be infringed" is not clearly understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
Good nite #1 and LT. Pay attention to the parrot.
And why do you always ignore the initial qualifier "a well regulated milita" which is not just a modifier but also a preceding one and part of the same and only sentence. That is coupled with the well documented original intent to protect the state militias from being absorbed into the Federal government. It took the Supreme court 200+ years to come to a splint decision applying that to individual gun ownership, which shows that is a very recent interpretation and not the original intent. I guess we will see how long that stands, won't we.
For years we had one, named Banshee, that raised a ruckus any time anything happened outside his window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane Pole
As have already posted "shall not be infringed upon' HAS already "been infridged upon"; it became ILLEGAL to possess "FULLY AUTOMATIC" weapons and "CREW SERVED" weapons in 1939 by a rater lop sided ruling of the US Supreme Court with only a few exceptions. And the 1st Amendment does NOT allow you to publish or promote EVERY idea. Child pornography is an example. Ultra leftist or right wing "Round `em all up and put them in the gas chambers' or "Shoot them without charges, trial or conviction !" statements are also illegal and like other "ideas" are PUNISHABLE in a court of law...and THANK YOU in all sincerety GOD Almighty that there in the US they ARE.
Should clarify something. Wasn`t joking about using "chemical weapons' as a means of "home defense". Have an older home with no heat or A/C ducting upstairs, just a thru vent, which is at the foot of my side night stand looking directly down at the the stair landing facing the solid oak 3 steel strap reenforced VHD hinged door with deadbolt that blocks the stairs. 3" stout decking screws on the striker plate and other hardware. Gonna take 30 seconds (at least) to break it down, and since it opens inward away from the steps, maybe longer. The point is have a rubber booted wide mouth Mason type jar filled with rather STRONG chlorine that will water your and anyone else`s eyes at a fair distance. And a gas mask for each of us, literally can`t find 1 for the dog. Directly over an intruder`s head...this would be the "WARNING" shot. Unless you are SUPER HUMAN you may find that you just lost interest in proceeding any farther. Mask provides total protection to us, and is actually fairly easy to clean up, largely just diluted with water and proper ventilation. Does burn the eyes a little...
We had a Lhasa Apso....spelling..... That sucker would let us know if anything was outside. She was a good dogQuote:
Originally Posted by no1son
There have been three dogs over the years that were like that in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishingpox
The family's last farm dog when I was still at home was a border collie type. He had some steel in his backbone but was not mean. He let us know if something was going on. Not a house dog but he slept on the porch outside my folks bedroom. I could never even sneak back home late from a party but that he let my parents know. The Avon lady took a swing at him with her hand bag once and always after that she had to be escourted out of her car to make a sales call on my mother. But I don't remember that Prince ever bit anyone. My father who hunted a lot relied on the farm dog to discourage strangers on the place when no one was around and it worked so well that I do not recall even someone stealing a tank of gas from the gas barrel despite the fact that it turned out that a three state farm theft ring was operating from a base not three miles from our family farm. We were never bothered without locking anything up nor ever having any gun except hunting ones (except my mother would secretly lock the house if dad would be gone overnight, which he was from time to time on church business or something like that - later on she admitted that she decided not to bother him with that "little" detail at the time).
The second was a feisty dog type, the last survivor of a litter some idiot abandoned that wandered into the small factory I was working in down in Tampa. She and I hit it right off which amused the rest of the crew. You could see her think over a problem. She actually met the first dog when I came back from Tampa to the Iowa farm. The old dog recognized my car and came to greet me at the car window when I drove back on the yard the first time, and I almost had a dog fight right there in my lap when The Waif thought he was attacking me for all that he was three times her size. She became their first house dog somewhat over my father's initial objections, adopting them for her own and stayed with them when I moved to town.
The third was a miniature Schnauzer, otherwise almost identical in temperament to the second. An offstandard pup who was offered to us, since the breeder couldn't bring herself to destroy him like most would have. Brutus had the personality for the whole litter. I only saw once where he was cowed by anything, and that was one time when we were out for a walk and passed a young Indian woman with her baby in a stroller. On her lease had to have been a full blood wolf, big, blueeyed and moved in the most graceful float I have ever seen. Brutus ducked behind my legs with his head and tail down. It almost seemed like the wolf and Brutus came to some instant agreement that as long Brutus stayed duck and with his head down the other would agree not to notice him. That was the only time I ever saw him back down from anything except what punishment he knew he deserved if he broke the house rules. Nobody entered our house with him around except they passed his muster. Some folks never completely did, but I do not remember him biting anybody either. He would just sit close by and never take his eyes of them, which can be really unnerving. Some of those folks stopped coming over because of it. Their loss. We also had cats back then, and there never was any trouble between them, they all knew Brutus outranked them in the family order. He moved right in and that was that. He lasted 18 years until a stroke robbed him of all his senses. My wife had to leave the room at the end; he died in my arms and I don't think I will ever quite forgive the vet for not allowing us to bring him home to go in the ground in his own yard.
A good dog? you betcha! One you shed tears over when the time comes. I am not at all ashamed to say that tears still come to my eyes when I think about any of them, especially the last two. Not something that you would ever be able to put a price on or even think about selling. Way better than a gun if it comes to that. For those who have to have a house gun, also an excellent first line of defense and alarm.
You want a dog that will become a companion and a family member, one that will stay with you for all its life, one that carries his own weight if only given half a chance, and one that bonds with the whole family on top of everything else, which is not the case for all breeds, either. In that kind of dog a moderate amount of appropriate gruff without getting mean is almost automatic. But don't get yourself a stupid dog; they are worthless and worse than worthless.
A family dog can be the best defense for a household there is, besides the willingness to stand up for oneself and one's own and be smart about it, that is, and one really doesn't need a gun to do just that.
It is very American to protect oneself and one's family and property, even if the ways to do that vary even by law from place to place. It is not so much that way in much of the rest of the world. That is part of what sets us apart from so many other places in the world.
I know exactly where your coming from,I have pictures of my two hanging on my wall
Last dog I had was a democrat. He kept on peeing on my rose bush thinking it belonged to him.