# Giving handgun owners bad publicity



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So, he didn't give him his gun? He just lost track of a loaded firearm somehow?
What is with this guy?

https://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-says-he-did-not-give-aide-his-gun-2007-03-27.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

previous lead if anyone is confused or missed it.

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O44EEG0&show_article=1


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The article quotes "unregistered ammunition". What does this mean exactly? Does each round have a little serial number on the casing or something? They track ammo purchases?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kind of odd.

Was it the Senator's gun? If he didn't give it to him, how did he (the aide) get it? If he did, why did he do so if the aide had no permit to carry a gun?

Not THAT big a deal, actually, to me, but does show some apparent disregard for the law.

I don't see how a man, esp with no permit, can forget that he is now packing heat, and two loaded magazines. Most private citizens who carry don't normally carry two loaded magazines, anyway.

Again, them inconsistencies are pretty odd, here.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The news stories are pretty deficient, but one can imagine a situation where Webb had the gun and clips in a briefcase or suitcase in his car, asked the aide to bring that case to him at his Senate office, and the aide did so, not knowing what was inside. Without a lot more information it's hard to evaluate.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The article quotes "unregistered ammunition". What does this mean exactly? Does each round have a little serial number on the casing or something? They track ammo purchases?


Believe it or not, the radical Democrats here in the California legislature have been trying to push laws through to just such an end! One of the measures wants each bullet individually serialized. Another would require the handgun to print its serial number on each cartridge case when fired! I've lived in California most of my life. Love the place, but those damn Reds in the legislature are doing the utmost to drive me and people like me out the state!


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The article quotes "unregistered ammunition". What does this mean exactly? Does each round have a little serial number on the casing or something? They track ammo purchases?


I believe in DC, one is not permitted to own ammunition except for a registered gun. Hence if a gun is registered the ammunition for the gun in your possession is also deemed registered. However, the ammunition must match the gauge or caliber of the registered gun you own. If you lived in DC and owned a registered 9mm but also had possession of .45 calibre ammunition (without actually owning a registered .45) - that ammunition would be deemed unregistered and would be illegal.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I believe in DC, one is not permitted to own ammunition except for a registered gun. Hence if a gun is registered the ammunition for the gun in your possession is also deemed registered. However, the ammunition must match the gauge or caliber of the registered gun you own. If you lived in DC and owned a registered 9mm but also had possession of .45 calibre ammunition (without actually owning a registered .45) - that ammunition would be deemed unregistered and would be illegal.


That makes sense. Thanks Rocker.

Jan, you have to be kidding me? I remember the whole thing about the "drop test" in Cali but serial number each round? Geez.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Jan, you have to be kidding me? Geez.


I only wish I were!

This was dead-serious measure that, as I recall, actually carried one house of the state legislature before it withered on the vine. I can only hope that Herr Schwarzennegger has enough of the Republican left in him to veto such madness should it come to him for his signature.

The drop-test is comparatively innocuous since almost any decently designed and made handgun can pass it. It is an expensive nuisance to manufacturers and importers, however. A worse measure is that any newly designed auto pistol must have both a tangible loaded-chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect. Guns already on the "approved" list are unaffected by this, thank God!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Jan,

while I am not suggesting I am supporting such alaw, what is the problem with it?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Isn't there a Supreme Court case coming up about Washington DC illegal laws about guns?

If the Supreme Court obeys the law then even California will have a few changes. 

JLibourel, if all you people move away, then all that is left in California will be nut cases.

As is, nearly every felon in the US has guns. And, the Government is not supposed to know if you have a gun they don't order you to have, anyway. After all, does the government own us, or we own the government? In the US were not suppose to be govenrment property.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

WA said:


> Isn't there a Supreme Court case coming up about Washington DC illegal laws about guns?
> 
> Two weeks ago, the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia circuit threw out our city's handgun ban, which has been on the books for about 30 years. City leaders have vowed to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That said, I wish people would get as angry over our lack of congressional representation as they do over the gun ban.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Doctor B said:


> WA said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't there a Supreme Court case coming up about Washington DC illegal laws about guns?
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Kind of odd.
> 
> Was it the Senator's gun? If he didn't give it to him, how did he (the aide) get it? If he did, why did he do so if the aide had no permit to carry a gun?
> 
> ...


Being a gun owner and CCW permit holder myself, I think it is a huge deal. What we don't need is gun owner's that refuse to accept they take on an enormous responsibility for everything that happens with that gun. I find the comments about "he is a former Marine" and "former Navy Sec. James Webb" I saw in the media to be truly offensive. As if somehow being a former Marine or Navy man exempted one from standard gun safety/handling mandates.

I'm neither a Marine nor a Sailor, but I can 100% guarantee society my gun will never be mishandled or negligently left loaded where another person may accidentally pick it up (be that a criminal or a child). If I didn't feel confident to handle that responsibility I wouldn't have a gun.

No where in Webb's statement is there any acknowledgement of just how wrong being absent-minded and losing track of a loaded gun is. He should certainly lose his CCW permit over this incident IMHO. If not his handguns (depending on his State).

It's total hypocrisy for the anti-gun media to simply report and not comment on Webb because he's a Democrat that defeated Allen. Where are the questions about "Mr. Webb why don't you have a trigger lock?" that you, I, or any other non-favorite would be subjected to without any objectivity. Clearly, if he had magazines it was a semi-auto. Yet, when anyone else has a semi-auto pistol they are accused of having an "automatic assault weapon". I wonder if it was a High-Capacity magazine? Where's Mrs. Brady? I haven't seen her on the news today!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KenR said:


> I'm not following you here. My congresswoman represents me reasonably well. Did you vote for yours?


The District's Congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, is not allowed to vote.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Didn't catch where he was from. My bad.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> Jan,
> 
> while I am not suggesting I am supporting such alaw, what is the problem with it?


I am not sure which law you mean. If you mean serial numbering bullets, it would render the cost of ammunition prohibitive. The original proposal would have also made it illegal to have any ammo with non-serial numbered bullets. It would be an administrative nightmare to record serial numbers anytime someone buys a brick of .22s.

If you mean the loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety, they are extraneous and unnecessary features, and it will preclude the sale of many fine guns in California.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I am not sure which law you mean. If you mean serial numbering bullets, it would render the cost of ammunition prohibitive. The original proposal would have also made it illegal to have any ammo with non-serial numbered bullets. It would be an administrative nightmare to record serial numbers anytime someone buys a brick of .22s.
> 
> If you mean the loaded chamber indicator and magazine safety, they are extraneous and unnecessary features, and it will preclude the sale of many fine guns in California.


Like Chris Rock said, instead of gun control we should just raise the cost of bullets to $5,000 each. Then there would be no more innocent bystanders or impulse killings.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Like Chris Rock said, instead of gun control we should just raise the cost of bullets to $5,000 each. Then there would be no more innocent bystanders or impulse killings.


Well, let me see [reaching for calculator]... averageing about 300 rounds a week...that would cost me about $78,000,000/year. No more Carlo Franco ties for me! I don't think that non-shooters have the slightest inkling the volume of powder the gun culture burns in this country!

What got me about the story was that it turns out that it is legal for senators and congressmen to carry into the Capitol Building, in a city where the common man is not allowed to even possess a handgun. Regarding Webb's aide, it is insane to charge him -- there was no _intent_. However, it's the Liberals reaping what they have sown in the schools. Mindless Zero Tolerance. So I'll throw in that Webb should go to jail, too, since he provided a firearm to someone who was not legally entitled to possess it.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I believe in DC, one is not permitted to own ammunition except for a registered gun. Hence if a gun is registered the ammunition for the gun in your possession is also deemed registered. However, the ammunition must match the gauge or caliber of the registered gun you own. If you lived in DC and owned a registered 9mm but also had possession of .45 calibre ammunition (without actually owning a registered .45) - that ammunition would be deemed unregistered and would be illegal.


I believe that to be correct. Here is the DC Gun Law:

Also, I guess if the gun isn't registered to you, possessing the ammo would be a lesser included charge.

My guess is that the firearm and ammo were not registered in DC, either to Webb or anyone else. The reports I heard sound as if Representatives and Senators were exempt. That would not surprise me. Organized crime always gets around gun laws.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"Regarding Webb's aide, it is insane to charge him -- there was no _intent_."

How did you determine this? Webb is directly quoted as saying he did not give the aide the guns. And, if he (Webb) is "embellishing" the truth, I still find it hard to believe that he would give the man guns and ammo, and not mention it to him.

But, you never know. Like I said, this is a very odd case.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> I don't think that non-shooters have the slightest inkling the volume of powder the gun culture burns in this country!


That is the absolute truth. I hate when a news report will state, "So and so was found to have over 800 rounds of ammunition at his home!!" Geez, that does sound like he is ready to storm Fort Knox, does it not? It would not sound nearly as sinister if the report was, "So and so was found to have eight Winchester White Boxes from Wal-Mart at his home from the last sale they had on target ammo."

There, I just let out my secret....I do visit Wal-mart for something.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Every responsible gun owner ought to have 1000 rounds of good ammo... you know... just in case...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I have quite a few boxes of trap shells. _You know...just in case_....I feel like heading out to the range.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Every responsible gun owner ought to have 1000 rounds of good ammo... you know... just in case...


Make that "per caliber"? Seriously, I have three calibers, .40, 9mm, and a .38. I simply wait until I see a sale at Wal-mart in the WWB and stock up. That way I only need to buy target ammo twice a year. I enjoy shooting but am so busy, and do not really like the range nearby, so I go maybe once very two months and squeeze off a box or two of on my G23 and my Kahr Elite, just to stay in semi-practice. I am not a great marksman, center body mass from 15 feet is my only goal.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Make that "per caliber"? Seriously, I have three calibers, .40, 9mm, and a .38. I simply wait until I see a sale at Wal-mart in the WWB and stock up. That way I only need to buy target ammo twice a year. I enjoy shooting but am so busy, and do not really like the range nearby, so I go maybe once very two months and squeeze off a box or two of on my G23 and my Kahr Elite, just to stay in semi-practice. I am not a great marksman, center body mass from 15 feet is my only goal.


I would never buy at Wal-mart. I usually use Eric @ ammoman.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I would never buy at Wal-mart. I usually use Eric @ ammoman.


Is that a local place or an internet website? As I spend a total of maybe $300 or so a year on ammo (last time I bought, 9mm WWB were $8.99 a box), the payback would have to be a big percent to get me to change my buying habit.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am not a great marksman, center body mass from 15 feet is my only goal.


Sounds like you are paranoid.

I wonder what the percentage is for the few that need a gun for protection.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Is that a local place or an internet website? As I spend a total of maybe $300 or so a year on ammo (last time I bought, 9mm WWB were $8.99 a box), the payback would have to be a big percent to get me to change my buying habit.


Internet. It's surplus. He has a long track record and great reputation. 
He looks to be out of the best deal 9mm 124gr Nato headstamp $119/500 or $199/1000 rounds delivered, but he has some federal 115gr for $109/$189

There are many other good internet sources.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

WA said:


> Sounds like you are paranoid.
> 
> I wonder what the percentage is for the few that need a gun for protection.


If you have a house with doors and windows and you sleep at night, then you are in need.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

android said:


> If you have a house with doors and windows and you sleep at night, then you are in need.


I agree and that everybody should know how to use their guns. But, what percentage of people will ever need it even once? How many (percentage) a few times? And what percentage need it most of the time?

Needing it- maybe just showing it, or shooting somebody. I asume that most people that ever need a gun will only need to show it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Sounds like you are paranoid.
> 
> I wonder what the percentage is for the few that need a gun for protection.


Really? Interesting. Being able to hit center mass from 15 feet is a pretty low standard of marksmanship, albiet effective. I will not reply by returning an insult to you, but if you think showing a gun is like waving a magic wand that will end a confrontation, you had better hope you run into a bad guy named Houdini. Think of a fight...how many times did the mere appearance of you making a fist stop you from getting hit? No, if one shows force, one had better be prepared and able to use it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, I don't get it. On the thread re: the 15 marines your all for 'dropping a few bombs on their leaders and military' and watching newly freed iranians pouring into the streets with long secreted Coca-Cola bottles singing 'I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony...' My response, my advise to anyone who thinks a society legislating itself into Valium emasculated work beasts opening FED EX packages with car keys is simple: Find it, stash it and like Bug's Nimrod nemesis Elmer Fudd " Be wery, wery quiet." about what you have. Reminds me, I need to reload some more 9.3x62 Brenneke TUGs and FMJs. That last SUV stopped right at my boots last week, even after a breaking shot into the left tyre followed by a brain shot into the onboard computers. Elmer Kieth would have been proud.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> Reminds me, I need to reload some more 9.3x62 Brenneke TUGs and FMJs. That last SUV stopped right at my boots last week, even after a breaking shot into the left tyre followed by a brain shot into the onboard computers. Elmer Keith would have been proud.


Maybe if you used a pistol


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

My old friend Elmer would have felt you were undergunned, Kav.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*response to WA*

I have never needed a firearm for self defense. That being said, I feel secure knowing that if I ever do it will be there and I know how to use it.

I do not believe myself to be paranoid.

My political views are to the left of Communist.

Gun control is, IMHO, used by both parties as a wedge issue, or to get out the vote in a particularly tight election. I believe this also to be the case with respect to other emotionally charged issues such as abortion (the right to which I support), the practice of religion in public schools (which I oppose). These divert the electorate's attention from other subjects (the economy, the environment, national health care, military spending) which I believe ought to be central in the nation's public discourse.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Really? Interesting. Being able to hit center mass from 15 feet is a pretty low standard of marksmanship, albiet effective. I will not reply by returning an insult to you, but if you think showing a gun is like waving a magic wand that will end a confrontation, you had better hope you run into a bad guy named Houdini. Think of a fight...how many times did the mere appearance of you making a fist stop you from getting hit? No, if one shows force, one had better be prepared and able to use it.


If you need to use a gun then use it, but, most times most criminals will be glad to walk away, 
it will save you a lot of legal time.

If you shoot the wrong person sometimes the relatives come for getting even. If you enter that world the rest of your life will be different in ways you want not.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, I don't get it. On the thread re: the 15 marines your all for 'dropping a few bombs on their leaders and military' ...


Not saying it is sinceable or even possible, because it needs to be done right. On the other hand it may be the best thing for the world. A very few selected targets. Iranian people are proud of their country- doesn't mean they like the leader (from what I hear the people are waiting for better leadership so they can get on with their lives the way they would like).

Iraq, on the other hand, is a total miss because there are too many irons in the fire.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

It appears that Senator Webb is making a political point about the arrest and is turning the arrest into a Constitutional issue. 

I find it ludicrous that DC is permitted to except itself from an enumerated Constitutional right and find it especially ironic ivo their desire to gain voting rights. Hopefully this will cause the Supremes to finally make a ruling about it being an individual right versus a collective one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> If you need to use a gun then use it, but, most times most criminals will be glad to walk away,
> it will save you a lot of legal time.


So if you feel this way, why did you feel the need to insult me by calling me paranoid for the simple act of target practice five or six times a year with a very low level of marksmanship as my goal? Did you just feel the need to insult someone randomly? Do you think you buy a gun, put it away forever and that people that actually ensure both the mechanism and their skills work on an ongoing basis are all paranoid? And lastly, if you think the average street thug, armed themselves, is going to walk away from the mere sight of a gun, well you have not come across too many bravos in your time.



WA said:


> *If you shoot the wrong person sometimes the relatives come for getting even.* If you enter that world the rest of your life will be different in ways you want not.


You seem to have a Hatfield and McKoy type feud already brewing in your mind....and I am paranoid for practicing to ensure I hit the right target?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> It appears that Senator Webb is making a political point about the arrest and is turning the arrest into a Constitutional issue.


Have you seen a statement by Webb to that point? I haven't heard him make a peep about the Constitutionality.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

*Say it isn't so*



android said:


> If you have a house with doors and windows and you sleep at night, then you are in need.


This statement saddens me deeply.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Have you seen a statement by Webb to that point? I haven't heard him make a peep about the Constitutionality.


Saw this earlier, but now it appears that the weapon really belonged to the aide.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> Saw this earlier, but now it appears that the weapon really belonged to the aide.


Thanks. Interesting read.

Belonged to the aide? That's a new twist.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm pleased to read the stance of Webb on the 2nd amendment issues. He probably making these statements because he is getting bashed for the very idea of being licensed to carry a gun (exacerbated by the fact that he's a Democrat).

As for the aide, sounds as if he may have compounded his problems by lying about the situation. Either way, he's going to take the hit for this, and from what I've read, rightfully so.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So if you feel this way, why did you feel the need to insult me by calling me paranoid for the simple act of target practice five or six times a year with a very low level of marksmanship as my goal? Did you just feel the need to insult someone randomly? Do you think you buy a gun, put it away forever and that people that actually ensure both the mechanism and their skills work on an ongoing basis are all paranoid? And lastly, if you think the average street thug, armed themselves, is going to walk away from the mere sight of a gun, well you have not come across too many bravos in your time.
> 
> *You seem to have a Hatfield and McCoy type feud already brewing in your mind....and I am paranoid for practicing to ensure I hit the right target? *


No, I believe in his past posts he mentioned something about the mafia. 
The street thug wouldn't even have to have a gun. What is it a 20ft radius in which someone wielding a knife can be deadly? You may want to step back 5ft, Wayfarer.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I have the unasked for experience of being shot, slashed with a knife and shooting people. It's all so different from the pages of both SOLDIER OF MISFORTUNE and the editorial pages of newspapers. I don't know who frightens me more; anti gun and now knife and even unhealthy food advocates or the knucklewalkers at gunshows. My family moved to this nieghborhood when the San Fernando Valley turned ugly. Now, instead of getting shot by an illegal El Salvadorean gangbanger I can get T-boned in my Toyota by a trophy bride on the cellphone of her Lincoln Navigator ( now theres an oxymoron) asking Consuello back home in the laundry room to check on the Trader Joe's Greek style yogurt while sucking on a Starbucks Latte. There are many dangers in the world. Some are resolved by the presence of a firearm, stealth Bomber or bigger vehicle to back over your kids and dogs with. I fear the balance leave me only the option of joining a monastery and making goat cheese, wine or 7 fold ties with a CD of Hildegaard Von Bingen playing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav:

Excellent point. I remember in some gun safety glasses regretting that some of my fellow students were being allowed to pack. It really goes give one mixed feelings.

Let us all hope none of us ever is faced with the expediency of having to draw a weapon of any sort.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

In keeping with the lighthearted traditions of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush poked fun at himself and a few others in remarks that drew laughter and applause at the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Bush thanked the organization for providing dinner, "and I'd like to thank Senator Webb for providing security."

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070329/D8O5IK080.html


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...ar29,0,4724126.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone have some data on how many gun crimes were committed with .50 caliber rifles vs. how many murders were committed with knives in 2006?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

https://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violence/violence15.htm

A quick link I found. The site is a UK governmental one but it is discussing a study from the US. Scroll down to the table towards the end. You will see assaults with knives, assaults with blunt objects, and assaults with firearms all have their own category. You will see that knives and blunt objects more than double that for firearms, with the largest difference in the "serious injury" category. Very interesting.

I wonder what a ban on "blunt objects" would look like?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ok, I have been sitting on my hands for a couple of days about this. now I burst. 

1. as any of you who have seen my previous posts on this matter know, I still do not believe that having a firearm in the house is an effictient way to protect your house and family, and that there are better ways. 

2. in terms of the overall "cost" of this - the issue isn't just crimes commited with firearms - one needs to look at crimes commited with firearms and add to it firearm accidents. 

3. in terms of the value of having firearms, one needs to look at the question of if the same thing could have been achieved without a firearm - sure, X numbers of crimes were stoped by homeowners with firearms, would the same number, or less or more have been stoped by homeowners without firearms.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> 3. in terms of the value of having firearms, one needs to look at the question of if the same thing could have been achieved without a firearm - sure, X numbers of crimes were stoped by homeowners with firearms, would the same number, or less or more have been stoped by homeowners without firearms.


The answer to this would be speculation, and would likely reflect the gun ownership views of the person asked.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> ok, I have been sitting on my hands for a couple of days about this. now I burst.
> 
> 1. as any of you who have seen my previous posts on this matter know, I still do not believe that having a firearm in the house is an effictient way to protect your house and family, and that there are better ways.


Globetrotter:

I respect you knowledge of things military and martial. You no doubt have a far greater understanding and skill set than I do in the use of firearms and probably your _krav maga_ training would trump my standard Canadian hockey thug style of fighting. So I have to ask you, what are the more efficient ways to protect my house and family? Keep in mind, "efficient" includes monetary costs, time expenditures, and convienence.



globetrotter said:


> 3. in terms of the value of having firearms, one needs to look at the question of if the same thing could have been achieved without a firearm - sure, X numbers of crimes were stoped by homeowners with firearms, would the same number, or less or more have been stoped by homeowners without firearms.


This is a good question. There are many, many variables to it. However, let us just ponder the most likely scenarios:

1) one or more hardened tough guys enter the house and they can phyisically dominate the home's dwellers.

2) street crime: surely you do not think these thugs pick people that look physically imposing do you?

3) random hold up: armed citizens should keep their noses out of the situation.

So sometimes even the presence of an armed citizen does not factor in, as a bystanding armed person should keep his nose out of things unless he/she feels their life or that of someone else is in immediate peril. Meaning, if two teenagers are holding up a corner store with a knife and you walk in, your role should be to walk back out. Armed intervention on your part is not warranted unless the knife is pressed against someone. A knife on the other side of the counter being brandished is not immediately life threatening usually. I am sure some will disagree.

So you raise some good points. I am willing to be educated, most especially on protecting my house in a cheaper, more convienent, and superior manner.

Regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> ok, I have been sitting on my hands for a couple of days about this. now I burst.
> 
> 1. as any of you who have seen my previous posts on this matter know, I still do not believe that having a firearm in the house is an effictient way to protect your house and family, and that there are better ways.
> 
> ...


I respect your opinion.

As to #2 and #3, I have no problem at all holding a gun owner responsible for all incidents involving their firearm including accidents.

As to #1, if that's your theory and as long you only risk your family's safety on that I think that's fine. Just don't ask me to do the same. I'm a little bigger than average, in a lot better shape than average, and have studied Judo and Karate for over 20 years. Still, I am 100% confident there are many things I could do with a firearm I could not do without one. Primarily, they converge on protecting another person. While I might be able to protect myself from serious harm without a firearm, it's very, very hard to close distance fast and decisively enough to protect one or more vulnerable people. I think anyone would have a hard time trapping me in my home where I couldn't fight my way out and run like heck. However, I'm not exactly going to turn and run out of my house leaving my Wife defenseless. You are correct, that a firearm should not be the only means of home protection, but it certainly ups the 'ante'.

My Wife and I were just discussing this last night. We had an alarm sensor go out and had a service call. The technician was commenting on how I had the safest looking house in the neighborhood. It just looks like someone is paying attention. While they aren't exactly a big deal. I have the tallest and largest fence - meaning it covers more of my home (every window and door except the front). I have floodlights on day-to-dusk sensors (not just motion sensors) that keep the sides and rear of my yard well lit. The alarm company signs are replaced frequently (look new) and they are standing by each door. If you looked at my street, my house would be sort of discouraging to rob. It just looks like a totally anal retentive security conscious person lives there. Then there is the F-150 and the stickers that scream "this cracker has a gun!" There are just too many dark, un-kept homes that look almost abandoned and offer little if no resistance. Homes that make you think even if they have an alarm, they probably quit paying for monitoring, etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I wonder what a ban on "blunt objects" would look like?


no comment


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The total crimes crimes involving .50 BMG target rifles in the US sum total for all years since their availabilty is 2. Both cases were mere possession by white supremist groups arrested for other crimes including sawed off shotguns and modified selective fire assault rifles.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Globetrotter:
> 
> I respect you knowledge of things military and martial. You no doubt have a far greater understanding and skill set than I do in the use of firearms and probably your _krav maga_ training would trump my standard Canadian hockey thug style of fighting. So I have to ask you, what are the more efficient ways to protect my house and family? Keep in mind, "efficient" includes monetary costs, time expenditures, and convienence.
> 
> ...


I have had several heated discussions about this in the past. I would like to try to avoid this, because I have tried to clarify my position. but, I would be happy to answer your question, in terms of my opinion.

1. I look at the issue of what is the most likly dangers faced to you, or to me. home invasion, by an armed team, is pretty unlikly. I don't have the statistics for the place I live now, but for the last county I lived in, there were 2 home invasions during 3 years. in one case, the owner of the house was a drug dealer, in the other, he was mistaken for a drug dealer. the most likely scenario, in most areas, is a breakin by a couple of teenagers. not that I am suggesting to ignore an unlikly scenario, but I would say that if you have a chance of say 1 in one million of a home invasion, and one in one hundred thousand of an accidental death by home firearm (and I am just throwing the numbers up) then it is less "secure" to have gun to prepare for an unlikely scenario.

2. I am firmly of the belief that any risk that deserves to be answered with a firearm - say a home invasion by multiple armed men - a person who isn't a trained profetional at the top of him game simply won't be able to answer the threat in any way that would intervine. and I an not saying - "I could, but you couldn't" . at age 40, a decade or more since firing a firearm at somebody, I couldn't wake up at 3 am and find a firearm, unlock it, arm it, and then take an active part in acurate shooting with one or two armed men, espectially if I didn't want to start hitting innocents. maybe I could at age 21, but not now. and, maybe some of the guys here who fire hundreds of rounds a month, and have a military background, feel they could, and maybe they could, but I am not sure. likewise, if I had ahandgun in a holster, and I ran into a man holding a gun on me, when I was walking home in the evening with my family, I would not be able to draw and exchange fire with him in a way that would influence the situation.

3. so, to me, the issue is how can I meet the realistic threats to my family and my person, without creating added risks assosiated with having a firearm around. now, to be perfectly honest, if I didn't have kids, I might very well have a firearm - because that part of the equation would be taken away. but, when I take into account the level of risk assosiated with having a firearm in the house with kids, and the realistic chance of my influncing a threat with a firearm and not with a less than lethal weapon, I find that the firearm is a good trade off.

4. what I have are cannisters of CS gas, and nightsticks. several around the house, in the car, and, when I feel the need, I carry a collapsible tactical baton and a small cylender of gas. no threat to any innocents, no chance of a lethal mistake, no real threat if they are stolen. but, for pretty much every realistic threat, they are just as good as a gun.

I know that that last sentance may be shocking - but let me explain. I don't need to lock either the stick of the gun. I don't need to worry about the angles of fire, about where my family is. if I hear a sound at 3 am, I can be blasting gas in 3 seconds. my basic plan is simple: if somebody breaks into my house, I am going to fill the hallways with gas, and get out with my family. if he gets in my way, I will liquify his knees with a 24 inch hard resin nightstick.

if a couple of teenagers break in, I;m golden. if a single idiot theif with a gun breaks in , honestly, I am probrably just as well off as if I had a gun - my reaction will be faster, and he probrably doesn't want to shoot me, anyway. if 2 armed killer break in wanting to kill me, even if I had a M-16 in a lockbox next to my bed, I would still be dead.

good locks, good lights, sticks and gas are the best things, in my opinion.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I respect your opinion.
> 
> As to #2 and #3, I have no problem at all holding a gun owner responsible for all incidents involving their firearm including accidents.
> 
> ...


I can't argue with you about any of your points.

the one issue that tied this up the most, the last time this discusion came up at ask andy, was this - I believe that almost anyone who isn't a pro at the top of his form will not be able to operate a firearm in a way that will both influnce an armed conflict and not indanger innocents in the situations where a firearm is really the diffence between success and defeat - for instance, a home invasion in the middle of the night by someone determined to kill you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Globetrotter:

I agree with much of what you are saying. I have no illusions about my ability to perform as you have described. However, my ability to physically meet poeple without a gun is even lower. People entering my house will not be well trained, in all liklihood, but they will be hardened toughs. We have no children, your major risk is removed.

Lastly, Arizona does have multiple home invasions. It is a well known crime. People enter upscale homes for profit. It happens weekly here. This is exactly what I have concerns about. We have a good alarm system, good motion lighting system, and good fencing and a 12 ft. drop to the wash. Sorry, but that G23 in the night stand is going to stay there.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Globetrotter:
> 
> I agree with much of what you are saying. I have no illusions about my ability to perform as you have described. However, my ability to physically meet poeple without a gun is even lower. People entering my house will not be well trained, in all liklihood, but they will be hardened toughs. We have no children, your major risk is removed.
> 
> Lastly, Arizona does have multiple home invasions. It is a well known crime. People enter upscale homes for profit. It happens weekly here. This is exactly what I have concerns about. We have a good alarm system, good motion lighting system, and good fencing and a 12 ft. drop to the wash. Sorry, but that G23 in the night stand is going to stay there.


nothing to be sorry about - no kids in the house, and a real threat faced, you pretty much answer my points. the difference between being able to leave an unlocked firearm on your night table and not is almost all the diffeence between being able to return fire before somebody makes it up the stairs and not

lets hope none of us have to use our relative weapons.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> lets hope none of us have to use our relative weapons.


I could not agree more.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> good locks, good lights, sticks and gas are the best things, in my opinion.


Hey, globe, don't rule out good dogs in a home security plan. Even though I go to sleep every night with a .45 beneath my pillow, if I were surprised in my sleep, I'd probably still be dead meat. Awakened and alerted, pistol in hand, I like to think I'd still be a fairly redoubtable foe, although at 65 I am not as good as I once was, when I could outshoot the captain of the 1976 world champion combat pistol team with some regularity. (He would outshoot me more often, though, I think the breakdown was about 60% of the time him, 40% me.

Anyway, my early warning system is a darling little dog I adopted about six months ago. She was up for adoption because she had killed and eaten the neighbors' dog. The neighbors' dog was a 100-pound Akita.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

We have an alarm system, but there's not much crime in our area. In fact, a few of our neighbors don't even lock their doors at night. I'm a little more cautious than that. If someone did ever break in, I have a 12 gauge Remington in my closet ready to greet them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Anyway, my early warning system is a darling little dog I adopted about six months ago. She was up for adoption because she had killed and eaten the neighbors' dog. The neighbors' dog was a 100-pound Akita.


Actually a barking dog of any proportions is a pretty pursuasive argument for "wannabe" home invaders to find a quieter target!


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

The real matter at hand is that as Americans, the right to bear arms is an enumerated civil right, just like freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc. Debate continues about this right. Is it collective or individual. I would point out that all the other rights in that section are individual ones but would also point out that our Supreme Court has declined to definitively rule on the matter and leave the issue to each state to decide. This approach seems to mostly work. 

Virginia has a rational approach to the matter and has acceptable limits on the right (registration, background check, fingerprinting for handguns) and in the US, licensed handguns are infrequently used for crime (for obvious reasons). Now there are problems with this approach. People dont always secure registered guns properly, which allows them to be stolen or for children to find them. People commit suicide with them or crimes of passion. 

We are probably about to see a Supreme Court hearing of DCs ban of guns. DC wishes to be treated as a state (it's not a state but some weird other thing), but has decided to ban an enumerated right. It will be interesting to see which way it goes. 

As far as personally having a handgun being good or bad. I think it has its upsides and downsides. I have seen statistics (and statistical manipulation) from both sides. As far as I'm concerned, no matter, it's one of our enumerated rights and cannot be administratively suspended by the government. If we as Americans decide we want to take that right away from ourselves, there's a process and that's the way it would have to be done.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> Hey, globe, don't rule out good dogs in a home security plan. Even though I go to sleep every night with a .45 beneath my pillow, if I were surprised in my sleep, I'd probably still be dead meat. Awakened and alerted, pistol in hand, I like to think I'd still be a fairly redoubtable foe, although at 65 I am not as good as I once was, when I could outshoot the captain of the 1976 world champion combat pistol team with some regularity. (He would outshoot me more often, though, I think the breakdown was about 60% of the time him, 40% me.
> 
> Anyway, my early warning system is a darling little dog I adopted about six months ago. She was up for adoption because she had killed and eaten the neighbors' dog. The neighbors' dog was a 100-pound Akita.


I couldn't agree with you more. aside from my mother in law, the single issue I have argued with most with my wife is about a dog - I would love to have a dog, and feel that is is probrably the single biggest asset to a home security system. my wife really doesn't want one.


----------

