peacefuljeffrey

Your gender is not an issue. Your tendency to turn anything into an argument and your tendency to politicize the topic of guns is the issue. Pick one. Any of them are politicizing. Idunno, I see those replies as germain to the subject, and fairly addressing things that various WOMEN said in response to the POLL about their reasons why they do or do not own guns. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The point is that the AR-15 is not a "military" rifle, or that would be what the military uses. It is a semi-auto, and thus no different from the Mini-14 in terms of function or lethality. I also don't really believe the claim that bullets go sproinging all over the place when such a high-velocity round enters a body. I lump this with the supposed "fact" that the AR-15 round "tumbles." I work with a guy who believed strongly that the bullets fired by the AR-15/M-16 tumble IN FLIGHT! I could not reconcile why one would believe that a rifled bullet fired from a 1/14 twist barrel would not have gyroscopic stability in flight... Not only do I completely doubt the veracity of the claim that "the AR-15 is very very easy to modify to full auto," I will state unequivocally that it is ILLEGAL in the strongest sense to sell, purchase, or even conspire to acquire materials for use in converting a semi-auto gun to full auto in the United States of America. You would do serious time in prison for attempting or effecting such a modification. A gun being a "hunting weapon" is not the only defense for why a civilian would want or need to own one. Defense against predatory HUMANS is a valid reason. So is the hobby of competitive (or even non-competitive) target shooting. Incorrect. The stated reason for the U.S. using the 5.56 NATO round is that rather than kill a target, it is more likely to severely wound a target, necessitating more of the combat force to come to his aid, and that takes them out of the fight. Two guys may have to carry a guy who's been hit with 5.56mm: can they still fire their weapons as they do so? It is true that you are entitled to your feelings that civilians should not own "assault weapons" such as the AR-15. I think it's important, though, to delve into WHY you feel that way. What such a question inevitably leads to is the exposure of the fact that people who make that claim often do so with lack of regard for the fact that functionally, the guns they say we shouldn't have are no different from the guns they feel it IS alright for us to have. That is irrational. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's true that many people victimized by gun violence are themselves involved in criminal exploits. (This helps to account for the number of gun-related deaths in this country -- it is said that many people who are killed are themselves criminals, like drug dealers in inner cities.) However, I doubt that the majority of women who are victimized in crimes like rape suffer that way because they went into "bad areas." Don't lots of rapes happen in places where women have every right and reason to be, like mall parking lots, etc.? Robberies too. A gun could be the only thing that will save your life if you are broken down on the way somewhere, and someone, er, predatory shows up to take advantage of your isolation and helplessness. Say two really seedy characters show up when you're waiting for AAA to come and change your flat tire. That might be the right time to have a little "baby Glock" like the one mentioned in an earlier reply. The "baby Glock" in 9mm or even better .40 cal. provides 9 or 10 rounds of heavy defense that could keep a woman (or a man) from being either carjacked, raped, robbed or murdered. It's not all about whether you LIVE in a bad area, or HANG OUT in a bad area. Bad things can happen to average people in really mundane places. That said, I think it is unfortunate when people do allow themselves a false sense of security -- particularly when a person acknowledges right up front that it probably is false. What is the use of allowing oneself to feel secure when one knows that it's not necessarily true? Not everyone is cut out to own and/or carry a weapon like a handgun for personal defense: it's a personal choice. But I think that those who won't when they could should be circumspect, and realize that there is a resulting difference between themselves and those who go about daily life armed -- in terms of what they can expect will happen IF they are ever attacked. These are the choices we make, and will end up having to live with. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yep. I can see from the use of the word "enemy" in your sig that you agree. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you a lobbyist for the NRA or something? Most folks see through that kind of doublespeak. The vast majority of guns are weapons designed for killing. That's what they are good at. Some rifles, pistols, and shotguns are designed for target shooting. That's what they are good at. They are in the minority. I offer the perfect illustration, me. I own seven guns designed as weapons for killing. I own one gun designed for target shooting, a trap gun. It is anecdotal, yet illustrative. Guns, on the whole, are designed to kill, and I will stand up for our collective right to own them. If we are to be advocates for the right to own guns, we should also advocate realistic information about it, not beltway blabber. Guns are weapons designed for killing, and you should have the right to responsibly own one. Fine, Gmanpilot: I have no problem admitting that guns are weapons, and that they are designed to facilitate killing. Here is the problem, though: Too many people stop short right there at that revelation and do not ask necessary follow-up questions... such as: - Well, IS ALL KILLING EQUAL, AND BAD? - Aren't there ever times when killing accomplishes a moral and societal GOOD? It is not enough to say that, "Guns are for killing, and therefore should be banned." (note: I know you're not arguing to ban guns, but many people use the 'guns are for killing' line to do just that.) Police carry guns, and they do so in case they need to use lethal force against a criminal (read: "kill him"), and nobody screams to take away the police's guns. A crime victim who may well be killed by his attacker has the right to respond with lethal force against that attacker. If I am attacked and will surely be killed if I do not resist, am I wrong to respond with lethal force and kill my attacker? No? Then I have just demonstrated at least one instance in which killing is not wrong, and therefore cannot be used as a blanket reason why guns are bad if they are indeed designed primarily for killing. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The latest news I get is that the whole bill is dead now. That means no lawsuit shield, but more importantly NO ASSAULT-WEAPONS BAN EXTENSION, AND NO GUN-SHOW KILLER. As far as I know, the assault weapons ban expires on its own on September 23, 2004, and is not subject to a vote. Someone please clarify if I'm wrong on that. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, this one has me kinda laughing. The idiot democrats in the Senate took a sensible, necessary bill that would have protected the legitimate firearm industry from baseless, frivolous, predatory lawsuits and packed it with anti-gun abominations in the form of amendments to extend the so-called "assault weapons ban" and to close the non-existent "gun show loophole." So what happened? The very addition of those amendments (whose spirit is diametrically opposed to the underlying root bill) is what sank the support for the bill, and now the bill is history. What is the result of that? The gun companies don't get the federal anti-lawsuit protection that they have in 38 states (lawsuits in the remaining states keep failing anyway), and the democrats get to watch as their precious bullshit assault-weapons ban expires on September 23 of this year! Their ban is so weak, so useless, so arbitrary and flawed that it cannot possibly stand on its own merits, and that is why they don't simply have a vote to renew it as its own legislation. It has to ride on the coattails of another bill that people actually DO want passed. This was the last chance for it to do so this year -- according to Chuck Schumer. Now, come September, it will again be legal to buy magazines with 10+ capacity, and rifles with collapsible stocks AND pistol grips, etc. So big deal, the lawsuit protection didn't work this year. The best part of all this is that we have already seen how little support there is for the AW ban, and that it's gonna die an ignominious death as it should. I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders! Congratulations to the democrat schmucks in the Senate who fucked themselves over because they are so goddamned shortsighted, misguided, and ignorant. You won the battle and lost the war! We've wanted THIS far more than we wanted or needed the lawsuit shield! BWAHAHAHAHAA! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Neat-o! I don't see stuff like that often. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not my fault, man -- I tried. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Cute. A guy was complaining to a friend, "I'm sick with worry. I went with my wife to the doctor, but I can't remember if he said she has Alzheimer's or AIDS!" The friend says, "Easy! Put her in the car and drop her off wayyy across town. If she finds her way back, don't fuck 'er!!" -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sounds painful! Why not practice cleaning and deboning the chicken first, til you get good? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do I eat hydrogenated oils? Only if there's some cheddar sauce I can dip them in. Mmm, trans-fat sticks in cheddar sauce... *gurgleargh* -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Happy Birthday, Jett! (I don't know Jett, but kids are cool and she looks cute in the photos. At first I thought maybe you were talking about John Travolta's son... And btw Rocket is a COOL NAME! Whose kid is named Rocket? A skydiver around here?) -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not at the McDonald's near my office here. The last bunch of times I was there, they threw in plenty of ketchups, sometimes as many as five or six! I throw the extras into a big jar we have for related condiments here in the office. I wouldn't be so sure that the bid delay making your special burger is due to them making it so much as gathering all the staff around to hawk big LOOGIES onto it... I'd check under the bun if I were you... -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I was told by my brother, who was dating a chef, that she had told him that the pork/trichonosis thing was in the past, that it had to do with feeding and raising practices that are no longer in use. I have no more details than that about the pork. I did see some investigative report on t.v. one time that said a THIRD of the chickens that go to market have salmonella, and I guess that means if you don't cook the chicken adequately and/or you cross-contaminate your utensils, you have a 1/3 chance of getting exposed to salmonella... Yuck. I had campylobacter once (similar but I'm told more mild than salmonella) and believe me you do NOT want it. You will end up donating blood... in the worst way possible! I read about aging beef, and it is not done by simply letting the beef rot for a while. It's still done under refrigeration. By the way, it makes no difference as far as mad cow exposure whether beef is thoroughly cooked or not. The prions (proteins) that are believed to be responsible for vCJD (human "mad cow" disease) are not destroyed by ordinary cooking temperatures. Check out How Stuff Works -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Granted, I'm not Kennedy, and you didn't say, "What do you think, Jeffrey," but I would say I'd like to see you start calling it a "magazine" and stop calling it a "clip." Thanks in advance. (Desert Eagle .50?! Damn but you must make the big bucks!) -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There definitely seems to be more to this story! Why on earth were you having to turn your Glock over to the police? Why does it seem like you had to do so in the field, rather than taking it to a precinct? Do you like the idea of only the police having the right to own guns (as so many anti-gun liberals are fond of arguing), given your first hand experience with just how cautious they can be with them? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Go to a local gun shop, ask to be put in touch with a local NRA-certified instructor, and take a few sessions with that person. (If you are a woman, there are women who give instruction, also.) Tell the person that you want help selecting and learning to use a defensive handgun. They'll probably ask you if you plan to either carry it or keep it at home or both. The best thing you can do is get the help of an NRA-certified instructor. Do not just go to the gun shop and pick out what looks cool. If you do it that way, it may take you two, three, four gun purchases to finally get what's right for you. Your questions cannot be answered by those reading them here without knowing far more about you -- everything from how big your hands are to how much shooting experience you might have. Get your assistance in person from an actual instructor. And trust people who tell you they don't know and that you should go to someone who's more likely to know. Those people are far more honest than those who don't know but will continue to tell you anyway. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Since when is how you "feel" about your danger-exposure any kind of valid measure of whether you are actually going to end up facing danger? Do you think that the average person who gets mugged on the street "felt" that way as he or she proceeded? Do you think the average person driving 75 down I-95 "feels" in danger, even wearing no seat belt? Do you think the average person who dies of smoke inhalation in their sleep as the house burns down "feels" in danger as they lie down in bed to sleep? The problem with determining which security measures to take based on how in-danger you "feel" is that most people do not EVER "feel" in much danger. Danger strikes mostly when everything was perfectly fine just a moment before. That's when you will desperately need something (gun, fire extinguisher, seat belt, etc.) and if you did not prepare by getting these things ready when you were NOT in danger, you're gonna be screwed. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think that I have wanted to skydive ever since I was a kid and first became aware that people could jump from aircraft. It just always looked so cool, and free, and exciting. So when I was old enough, I went out and found out where I could jump: I ended up doing a static-line skydive at Skydive Long Island, back when they were at Spadaro Airport ('91). Certainly no one brought me to do it or tried to encourage me to. I just did it. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Maybe I didn't stick with it long enough... Back in about '95 I tried to read the first in the Gunslinger series (believe me, I wanted to like a book about a gunslinger!) and I just...couldn't...stay with it. The first Idunno 20-30 pages bored the shit out of me -- and what's more, it didn't even seem like Stephen King's writing! I was thinking of The Shining and Salem's Lot... it was nothing like those. I haven't read any King more recent than IT, believe it or not -- but at the same time, what I have read of his work makes me regard him as just about my favorite author of all time. I'll eventually get around to reading most of his writing, I guess. Eventually. Meanwhile, I've read some others of them three times. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your momma's so fat, she skydives with a termite tent for a parachute. She's so fat, two Super Otters carry her to altitude on a steel cable between 'em. Your momma's so fat, the fire department has her sit on the curb when someone threatens to jump off a ledge. Your momma's so fat, people have drowned in her. Your momma's so fat, she thought she had hemhorroids, but it was just a chair stuck in the folds of her ass causin' the pain. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't understand... your judo guy legitimizes my position: you don't mess with a person with a gun. My solution, in fact, is to pretty much always have a gun available. It doesn't cause me any stress or trouble to have, and if I ever do come to use it, boy will I really have needed it. You will find that most people who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun don't take the hypothetical use of it lightly. I would suspect that most do a good bit of soul-searching, and also tactical thinking, about when and if they would use a gun. I'm not the guy who would go running into a 7-Eleven from my parking space if I saw some bad-guy go in there with a gun tucked into his waistband. I'm no vigilante, but I sure as hell will protect me and mine, and for that it is most advisable to have a gun above all else (including judo, pepper spray, dogs, and begging/bargaining with/trying to run from your attacker). -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I guess I know who NOT to consult for personal security tips! This policy of yours, though quaint, is not exactly what I would call wise. Is there a benefit derived from leaving one's doors unlocked -- apart from not having to worry about losing one's house key -- that cannot be obtained when one does lock the doors? Why only in the past six years? Were crime rates high, and then when they dropped you decided it would be fun to test how low they are by leaving yourself and your family vulnerable? If, by some craaaaazy never-will-happen-in-a-small-town-in-WA chance, some nut arrives at your house with a big knife, a crazed look in his eyes, drugs in his system and bodily harm on his mind, would it not be preferable that he have to pound on your door, giving you advance notice that he's attempting a break in? Oh, wait, that's why you have the dogs; I forgot. Those infallible mutts. Ya gotta love 'em. So much better to hope they get between you and the robber than to maybe meet the robber with a Taurus or something. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, a little slack granted. I just thought it was funny how I got this deja vu. See, I care about neither event specified, but I don't think that either one had ever before so thoroughly sneaked up on me before the actual time it happened. I think of all these awards shows as pretty much a big farce. At this point it's a big heap of self-congratulatory bullshit, and really it's more for marketing than it is for recognition of excellence. The awards-ceremony niche is a huge money-maker in and of itself, n'est pas? It barely attempts to disguise that anymore... -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"