«

On Apr 19, 8:05*pm, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:29:30 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>
>
>
> <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >"Whisky-dave" <whisky.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8006749c-088f-4188-b367-...
> >On Apr 19, 1:26 pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:201104182346538930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
> >> > On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> said:
>
> >> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> >> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >> >>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> >> >>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> said:
>
> >> >>>>> John A. wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast..net>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone, particularly
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> if such "discussion" is really just a guise for anti-gun
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> propaganda.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a pediatrician's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> responsibility is to ensure a safe environment for the child.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA is far
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> better equipped to do that sort of thing than pediatricians are.
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to allow a teacher
> >> >>>>>>>>>> to present the program to your kids, but not a doctor?
>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
> >> >>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are killed in
> >> >>>>>>>>> automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you don't see
> >> >>>>>>>>> doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do you?
>
> >> >>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home and in
> >> >>>>>>>> the car. Why would they teach parents about covering outlets and
> >> >>>>>>>> locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not mention keeping
> >> >>>>>>>> the gun away from the kid and keeping the bullets away from it in
> >> >>>>>>>> case the kid does get to the thing?
>
> >> >>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
> >> >>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its safety
> >> >>>>>>> would not be an option either.
>
> >> >>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't even
> >> >>>>>> notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors talking to
> >> >>>>>> patients about home gun safety.
>
> >> >>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal thing.
> >> >>>>> How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety? Its the
> >> >>>>> liberals who think they know everything, and are right up front when it
> >> >>>>> comes to making laws about it, too.
>
> >> >>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
> >> >>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From the art
> >> >>>> of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>
> >> >>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone tofly a
> >> >>> B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified to teach
> >> >>> Marines how to fight.
>
> >> >>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
> >> >>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and expect
> >> >>> her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school English
> >> >>> teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect them to end up
> >> >>> combat ready.
>
> >> >>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. But
> >> >>> is that the normal situation for physicians? If not then what
> >> >>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>
> >> >>>> Of the five, three of these men hold decidedly conservative political
> >> >>>> views. The other two are best described as open minded progressives
> >> >>>> with a fondness and appreciation of firearms.
> >> >>>> If any of them believed a child was in jeopardy due to an irresponsible
> >> >>>> gun owning parent, I have no doubt they would do what ever they could
> >> >>>> to ensure that child's safety. That concern for the child's safety has
> >> >>>> nothing to do with "Liberalism" as you would have it Bill.
>
> >> >>> And how about a physician who has never seen a firearm? Should he also
> >> >>> be giving such advice?
>
> >> >> This is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> >> >> You don't have to be a licensed electrician to tell people to put
> >> >> covers on outlets, you don't have to be a professional driver to tell
> >> >> people to use a car seat and follow the instructions, and you don't
> >> >> have to be a gun safety expert to tell people to keep their guns away
> >> >> from their little kids and to make sure they're not loaded if the kid
> >> >> does get his hands on it.
>
> >> > The other thing many forget, is in most states there is a legal requirement
> >> > to
> >> > have firearms stored in a locked condition, either in a gun safe, orwith
> >> > disabling locks in a residence where children are present.
>
> >> And that totally negates the use of a handgun for home protection. My handgun
> >> is locked unloaded in a safe with a a lock on the gun itself. When I'mhome at
> >> night, it's loaded and unlocked in a safe place just in case I might need it.
>
> >How likely are you to need it, do you have a way of evaluating the
> >need or the risk ?
>
> >I'm asking because lots of people are at home at night including me
> >and I'm sure we all evaluate risks
> >and what can be done, for me it's locked windows and doors.
>
> >///////////////////////////////////
>
> >I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. *That won't stop someone who
> >is intent on getting in my house. *We live in a nice neighborhood thatis fairly
> >secluded from other housing developments. *There are 271 homes in the
> >development. *There are quite a lot of cops living here. *Directly across the
> >street from me live two cops. *Another lives three houses to the left.*Another
> >lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. *One of them
> >had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. *He heard the
> >noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. *It can
> >happen anytime. *That's why I keep a handgun in the house. *It's foolish to
> >assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. *You have to
> >err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
> >priority.
>
> Yes, but the handgun itself poses a non-zero risk. The question is how
> much risk, and how much risk is there from the things you are keeping
> it around to defend yourself from, and how much can you reduce that
> risk without taking on the risks of keeping a gun around. Specifically
> you want to calculate the total risk of being harmed in a break-in
> (including the chances that one will occur at all) if you have no gun,
> vs the chances of either being harmed in a break in despite the
> presence of a gun (again, including the chances that one will occur at
> all, as well as the chance of mistakenly shooting a loved-one either
> by mistaking them for an intruder or crossfire or what have you) OR
> having an accident with the gun.
>
> The most common fallacy, I think, in assessing the relative risks of
> gun-ownership vs gun-non-ownership is to compare your risk of harm IF
> YOU DO HAVE A BREAK-IN, with your total risk of accidental injury just
> from having the gun.
>
> So what are the numbers? What are the rates of occurrence of gun
> accidents in gun-owners' homes? What is the break-in rate in your
> neighborhood? (Anecdotes aren't the whole story; how often have they
> occurred on a per-household basis over the last decade?) And what are
> your chances of injury during such a break-in, with a gun in the home
> and without? (I'm guessing there's not enough data at the neighborhood
> level to get useful break-in rates broken down by houses with and
> without guns, so we'll just use the overall rate for both. Thieves who
> don't know if there are guns there won't be affected, and the few who
> do will either stay away because of it or target the house to get the
> gun(s) so I figure it may be a wash.)
>
> The injury rate with guns present would be...
> *rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-gun-in-home
> + rate-of-gun-accidents
>
> The injury rate with no guns in the house would be...
> *rate-of-break-ins X chance-of-injury-during-break-in-with-no-gun
>
> Plug in the numbers for your neighborhood and compare the risks.

Yes it's difficult to calculate, but it's not just the calculation is
it ?
How many of those that buy guns for protection (rather than sport or
hobby etc)
actually do those calculations or do they just assume they are safer
with a gun than
without them but is this really true.
Here in the UK we have a knife problem mostly amongst teenage kids.
It seems they feel safer carrying a knife because others do, but the
statistics show
that more kids are injured or killed with these knives than there were
20 years ago....
I can;t help but think the number of weapons in circulation is
directly proportional
to the number of injuries of deaths. I don't really want to give them
the idea that
carrying a gun will make them safer.

On Apr 19, 10:26*pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:.. .
> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> >>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> >>>> said:
> >>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham"
> >>>>>> <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>> particularly if such "discussion" is really just a guise
> >>>>>>>>>>> for anti-gun propaganda.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a
> >>>>>>>>>> pediatrician's responsibility is to ensure a safe
> >>>>>>>>>> environment for the child.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such
> >>>>>>>>>>> as the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA
> >>>>>>>>>>> is far better equipped to do that sort of thing than
> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians are.http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but
> >>>>>>>>>> it's OK to make it a school subject? *Why is it OK to allow
> >>>>>>>>>> a teacher to present the program to your kids, but not a
> >>>>>>>>>> doctor?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
> >>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are
> >>>>>>>>> killed in automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you
> >>>>>>>>> don't see doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do
> >>>>>>>>> you?
>
> >>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home
> >>>>>>>> and in the car. Why would they teach parents about covering
> >>>>>>>> outlets and locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not
> >>>>>>>> mention keeping the gun away from the kid and keeping the
> >>>>>>>> bullets away from it in case the kid does get to the thing?
>
> >>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
> >>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its
> >>>>>>> safety would not be an option either.
>
> >>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't
> >>>>>> even notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors
> >>>>>> talking to patients about home gun safety.
>
> >>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal
> >>>>> thing. How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety?
> >>>>> Its the liberals who think they know everything, and are right up
> >>>>> front when it comes to making laws about it, too.
>
> >>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
> >>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From
> >>>> the art of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>
> >>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to
> >>> fly a B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified
> >>> to teach Marines how to fight.
>
> >>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
> >>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and
> >>> expect her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school
> >>> English teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect
> >>> them to end up combat ready.
>
> >>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. Butis
> >>> that the normal situation for physicians? * If not then what
> >>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>
> >> I've followed the Florida controversy over this since the beginning.
> >> There has *never* been any suggestion by either side that
> >> pediatricians are or should be providing gun safety training.
>
> >> What some pediatricians have done, and what the NRA objects to, is
> >> ask the parents if there is a gun in the house and if they are
> >> following good gun safety procedures. *The pediatricians are merely
> >> trying to make the parent more aware of the need to protect the
> >> child from harm. What is being objected to is no more than a verbal
> >> reminder that the
> >> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
> >> are not followed. *The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
> >> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
> >> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
> >> mention the word "gun".
>
> > It's none of the doctor's business. *Are they as concerned if there
> > are proper precautions taken in case of a fire? *Do they ask if there
> > are escape ladders and an evacuation plan and have they had a fire
> > drill? *It's more likely that they are injured from a fire than any
> > firearms accident but the doctors don't seem to be concerned with
> > that.
>
> Well, so far the doctors only have the power of the pen. they are only able
> to withold or missprescribe the wrong medications. But it wouldn't surprise
> me if the liberals gave them the power of life and death over us as a matter
> of active practice.
> Why not let them force us to eat what they want us to eat, and live the way
> they want us to live? After all, once you have chosen a God, you should live
> by His rules......

Maybe you've hit the nail on the head who chose a man to be their
God ?
I haven;t chosen a religion, most are born into one.
Did God give americans the right to bear arms

On Apr 19, 10:42*pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 9:17 am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Savageduck wrote:
> >>> On 2011-04-18 22:41:33 -0700, John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> said:
>
> >>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >>>> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>>>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> >>>>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> >>>>>> said:
> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham"
> >>>>>>>> <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> John A. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> particularly if such "discussion" is really just a guise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for anti-gun propaganda.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pediatrician's responsibility is to ensure a safe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> environment for the child.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the NRA is far better equipped to do that sort of thing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> than pediatricians are.http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but it's OK to make it a school subject? Why is it OK to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> allow a teacher to present the program to your kids, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not a doctor?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated
> >>>>>>>>>>> with medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people
> >>>>>>>>>>> are killed in automobile accidents than in gun accidents,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but you don't see doctors teaching anyone about driving
> >>>>>>>>>>> safety, do you?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home
> >>>>>>>>>> and in the car. Why would they teach parents about covering
> >>>>>>>>>> outlets and locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not
> >>>>>>>>>> mention keeping the gun away from the kid and keeping the
> >>>>>>>>>> bullets away from it in case the kid does get to the thing?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a
> >>>>>>>>> gun handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about
> >>>>>>>>> its safety would not be an option either.
>
> >>>>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't
> >>>>>>>> even notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors
> >>>>>>>> talking to patients about home gun safety.
>
> >>>>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal
> >>>>>>> thing. How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety?
> >>>>>>> Its the liberals who think they know everything, and are right
> >>>>>>> up front when it comes to making laws about it, too.
>
> >>>>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are
> >>>>>> perfectly capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms
> >>>>>> education. From the art of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>
> >>>>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to
> >>>>> fly a B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was
> >>>>> qualified
> >>>>> to teach Marines how to fight.
>
> >>>>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick
> >>>>> any random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> expect her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school
> >>>>> English teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect
> >>>>> them to end up combat ready.
>
> >>>>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors.
> >>>>> But is that the normal situation for physicians? If not then what
> >>>>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>
> >>>>>> Of the five, three of these men hold decidedly conservative
> >>>>>> political views. The other two are best described as open minded
> >>>>>> progressives with a fondness and appreciation of firearms.
> >>>>>> If any of them believed a child was in jeopardy due to an
> >>>>>> irresponsible gun owning parent, I have no doubt they would do
> >>>>>> what ever they could to ensure that child's safety. That concern
> >>>>>> for the child's safety has nothing to do with "Liberalism" as you
> >>>>>> would have it Bill.
>
> >>>>> And how about a physician who has never seen a firearm? Should he
> >>>>> also be giving such advice?
>
> >>>> This is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> >>>> You don't have to be a licensed electrician to tell people to put
> >>>> covers on outlets, you don't have to be a professional driver to
> >>>> tell people to use a car seat and follow the instructions, and you
> >>>> don't have to be a gun safety expert to tell people to keep their
> >>>> guns away from their little kids and to make sure they're not
> >>>> loaded if the kid does get his hands on it.
>
> >>> The other thing many forget, is in most states there is a legal
> >>> requirement to have firearms stored in a locked condition, either
> >>> in a gun safe, or with disabling locks in a residence where
> >>> children are present.
>
> >> Yes, but you can't legislate intelligence or common sense. If I had
> >> to lock my gun in a safe, then it would be useless when I most
> >> needed it. On the other hand, if there are children runn8ng around
> >> the house, then I have to make it unfireable. How any loaw can tell
> >> me how to do this, is beyond me. Every case is different, and it
> >> depends on the gun. In my case, I padlock the gunj behind the
> >> trigger, and it can't be fired when the padlock is in place because
> >> its double action only. But I keep a key on my keyring to the
> >> padlock, and those keys rest by my nightstand just over the drawer
> >> containing the gun at night. During the day, those keys are always
> >> in my pocket and there is only one key to that lock. It would still
> >> be possible for a kid to sneak into my bedroom at night while I
> >> sleep, steal my keys, find the gun in the drawer beneath the keys,
> >> unlock it, and fire it while I sleep. Highly unlikely, perhapsw, but
> >> still possible. If I put it in a safe, then it would be unuseable,
> >> so I might as well not hae it at all.
> >> So you have to balance the probability that an intruder might enter
> >> the house and do damage, against the possibility that a kid might do
> >> damage. No law can do this.
>
> > Well they can obviously, whether they get it right or not is another
> > matter.
> > As in the UK you wouldn't be allowed a gun in the house generally
> > speaking.
>
> The crime rate in the UK is gradually rising.

It's very difficult to work out.....
On the news recently they said crime was on the increase but male
crime had fallen by 2%
but female violent crime had increased by 25%.
The reason for this is binge drinking women are drinking more
and getting drunk and abusive and causing fights and being directly
involved in them.


>Sooner or later the question
> will be raised as to whether the honest people have the right to defend
> themselves against the criminals.

Well we do have those rights already we have the right to use
reasonable force,
which in itself can be confusing. I thought the US had a similar thing
in that you can't
use a gun to blow the head of a child that's stolen your doughnut.
A more technical problem is when does the person become a criminal.
I don't believe the first option should be that you have to defend
yourself and that if
you can't well that's your problem.


>I would love to be around during that
> debate, but alas, I am now 75 and that probably won't happen.....

Well there have been debates in the past we've certainly had them in
the UK,
How often does your constitution get changed we use laws to define
such things.

"Walter Banks" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
>> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop someone
>> who
>> is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice neighborhood that is
>> fairly
>> secluded from other housing developments. There are 271 homes in the
>> development. There are quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the
>> street from me live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left.
>> Another
>> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. One of
>> them
>> had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. He heard the
>> noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. It can
>> happen anytime. That's why I keep a handgun in the house. It's foolish to
>> assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to
>> err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
>> priority.
>
> I lock the windows and ...
>
> The American Declaration of independence outlines a simple goal,
> " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is among the unalienable
> rights of man. I am always shocked when I hear otherwise rational
> people willing to live in the conditions described in Pete's paragraph.
> My windows don't have locks, my front door is unlocked as I type
> this and my car keys are in the cup holder in my car because
> someone wrote security code that makes it beep if I leave the keys
> in the ignition the way my father did.
>
> Much of my view of freedom is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness". The Declaration of Independence predates the US
> Constitution by more than a decade. Why is the constitutional
> second amendment receive more attention that the failure of the
> goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence? Given a choice,
> " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" probably allows
> me to carry a gun as well as being able to live without being
> molested by the neighbourhood. The simple goal fits closer to
> Bill's liberation philosophy.

Walter, sadly the days when you can go to sleep at night and leave your windows
and doors unlocked are over for most of us. I certainly can have a wide-open
house during the day, but when we retire for the night, it's not only foolish to
leave lower floor windows and doors unlocked, there is really no purpose in
doing it. I live in a typical, middle-class neighborhood. It's a pretty safe
place but there is nothing that is 100% safe and there are no guarantees. It's
wise to be prepared.

On Apr 20, 6:45*am, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:49:14 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It only takes me less than one minute to take my locked gun out of
> >> its drawer and remove the padlock hasp from behind the trigger while
> >> lying down. But this discussion has given me an idea. I could
> >> interlock the drawer where I keep the gun, so it would sound an
> >> alarm if opened, and I could hide the switch for this interlock
> >> behind the cabinet that contains the drawer. Then, should I need the
> >> gun in the middle of the night, I could turn off the switch first,
> >> and then open the drawer and remove the gun. '
> >> That way, should a grandchild open the drawer in the middle of the
> >> night, the alarm would sound, and wake me up. This would add another
> >> level of safety between kid and gun that doesn't exist right now,
> >> but doesn't interfere with my access to the gun in the middle of the
> >> night.
>
> > Now that you've got that problem solved, how do you go about
> > protecting that grandchild from a ricochet from your gun if you fire
> > it, or from a wild shot from that intruder you've been expecting?
>
> > Have anything in the house that you'd rather not lose because it's
> > more valuable than the grandchild?
>
> I have never shot anything by mistake in my entire life, and I don't intend
> to start now.

Can I ask how many times you have shot at something and hit of
course
I think I remmebr yuo saying you've used your gun twice to protect
yourself
but I don't recall the actual incidents and I'm curious about them.

On Apr 20, 1:16*pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
> >> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. *That won't stop someone
> >> who
> >> is intent on getting in my house. *We live in a nice neighborhood that is
> >> fairly
> >> secluded from other housing developments. *There are 271 homes in the
> >> development. *There are quite a lot of cops living here. *Directlyacross the
> >> street from me live two cops. *Another lives three houses to the left.
> >> Another
> >> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. *One of
> >> them
> >> had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. *He heard the
> >> noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. *It can
> >> happen anytime. *That's why I keep a handgun in the house. *It's foolish to
> >> assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. *You have to
> >> err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
> >> priority.
>
> > I lock the windows and ...
>
> > The American Declaration of independence outlines a simple goal,
> > " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is among the unalienable
> > rights of man. *I am always shocked when I hear otherwise rational
> > people willing to live in the conditions described in Pete's paragraph.
> > My windows don't have locks, my front door is unlocked as I type
> > this and my car keys are in the cup holder in my car because
> > someone wrote security code that makes it beep if I leave the keys
> > in the ignition the way my father did.
>
> > Much of my view of freedom is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> > Happiness". The Declaration of Independence predates the US
> > Constitution by more than a decade. Why is the constitutional
> > second amendment receive more attention that the failure of the
> > goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence? *Given a choice,
> > " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" probably allows
> > me to carry a gun as well as being able to live without being
> > molested by the neighbourhood. *The simple goal fits closer to
> > Bill's liberation philosophy.
>
> Walter, sadly the days when you can go to sleep at night and leave your windows
> and doors unlocked are over for most of us. *I certainly can have a wide-open
> house during the day, but when we retire for the night, it's not only foolish to
> leave lower floor windows and doors unlocked, there is really no purpose in
> doing it. *I live in a typical, middle-class neighborhood. *It's a pretty safe
> place but there is nothing that is 100% safe and there are no guarantees.*It's
> wise to be prepared.

I agree it's the same in the UK but why, it hasn't always been this
way.

On Apr 20, 1:16*pm, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>
> >> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. *That won't stop someone
> >> who
> >> is intent on getting in my house. *We live in a nice neighborhood that is
> >> fairly
> >> secluded from other housing developments. *There are 271 homes in the
> >> development. *There are quite a lot of cops living here. *Directlyacross the
> >> street from me live two cops. *Another lives three houses to the left.
> >> Another
> >> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. *One of
> >> them
> >> had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. *He heard the
> >> noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. *It can
> >> happen anytime. *That's why I keep a handgun in the house. *It's foolish to
> >> assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. *You have to
> >> err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
> >> priority.
>
> > I lock the windows and ...
>
> > The American Declaration of independence outlines a simple goal,
> > " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is among the unalienable
> > rights of man. *I am always shocked when I hear otherwise rational
> > people willing to live in the conditions described in Pete's paragraph.
> > My windows don't have locks, my front door is unlocked as I type
> > this and my car keys are in the cup holder in my car because
> > someone wrote security code that makes it beep if I leave the keys
> > in the ignition the way my father did.
>
> > Much of my view of freedom is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> > Happiness". The Declaration of Independence predates the US
> > Constitution by more than a decade. Why is the constitutional
> > second amendment receive more attention that the failure of the
> > goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence? *Given a choice,
> > " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" probably allows
> > me to carry a gun as well as being able to live without being
> > molested by the neighbourhood. *The simple goal fits closer to
> > Bill's liberation philosophy.
>
> Walter, sadly the days when you can go to sleep at night and leave your windows
> and doors unlocked are over for most of us. *I certainly can have a wide-open
> house during the day, but when we retire for the night, it's not only foolish to
> leave lower floor windows and doors unlocked, there is really no purpose in
> doing it. *I live in a typical, middle-class neighborhood. *It's a pretty safe
> place but there is nothing that is 100% safe and there are no guarantees.*It's
> wise to be prepared.

I agree, you never know what might happen, here in the UK in a city a
fox went into a house up
some stairs and attacked a baby in a cot. Give the baby a gun... no
close the door(s).
I know mountain lions have been used as a good excuse for owning a
gun but if closing a door
stops them coming in I'd do that.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:16:19 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<> wrote:

>"Walter Banks" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>>
>>
>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>
>>> I lock the windows and doors, like most people do. That won't stop someone
>>> who
>>> is intent on getting in my house. We live in a nice neighborhood that is
>>> fairly
>>> secluded from other housing developments. There are 271 homes in the
>>> development. There are quite a lot of cops living here. Directly across the
>>> street from me live two cops. Another lives three houses to the left.
>>> Another
>>> lives four house to the right of the two across the street from me. One of
>>> them
>>> had his house broken into when he and his family were asleep. He heard the
>>> noise and pulled out his gun and was able to hold the thief at bay. It can
>>> happen anytime. That's why I keep a handgun in the house. It's foolish to
>>> assume that a thief will not attempt to hurt you or your family. You have to
>>> err on the side of safety and keeping my family and myself safe is fisrt
>>> priority.
>>
>> I lock the windows and ...
>>
>> The American Declaration of independence outlines a simple goal,
>> " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is among the unalienable
>> rights of man. I am always shocked when I hear otherwise rational
>> people willing to live in the conditions described in Pete's paragraph.
>> My windows don't have locks, my front door is unlocked as I type
>> this and my car keys are in the cup holder in my car because
>> someone wrote security code that makes it beep if I leave the keys
>> in the ignition the way my father did.
>>
>> Much of my view of freedom is " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>> Happiness". The Declaration of Independence predates the US
>> Constitution by more than a decade. Why is the constitutional
>> second amendment receive more attention that the failure of the
>> goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence? Given a choice,
>> " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" probably allows
>> me to carry a gun as well as being able to live without being
>> molested by the neighbourhood. The simple goal fits closer to
>> Bill's liberation philosophy.
>
>Walter, sadly the days when you can go to sleep at night and leave your windows
>and doors unlocked are over for most of us. I certainly can have a wide-open
>house during the day, but when we retire for the night, it's not only foolish to
>leave lower floor windows and doors unlocked, there is really no purpose in
>doing it. I live in a typical, middle-class neighborhood. It's a pretty safe
>place but there is nothing that is 100% safe and there are no guarantees. It's
>wise to be prepared.

Even if where you live it's 100% crime-free there's still the chance
that some drunk will stumble into your house thinking it's his.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 03:53:21 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
<> wrote:

>On Apr 19, 10:26*pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> > "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:.. .
>> >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 01:15:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> In article <2011041821462316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> >>> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>>
>> >>>> On 2011-04-18 20:35:06 -0700, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net>
>> >>>> said:
>> >>>>> John A. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:09:16 -0700, "Bill Graham"
>> >>>>>> <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> John A. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:44:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> >>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:26:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> >>>>>>>>>> <n...@home.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> But in any case I don't see how it's the business of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians to "discuss gun safety" with anyone,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> particularly if such "discussion" is really just a guise
>> >>>>>>>>>>> for anti-gun propaganda.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Some agree with you, but many feel that part of a
>> >>>>>>>>>> pediatrician's responsibility is to ensure a safe
>> >>>>>>>>>> environment for the child.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The NRA has gun safety programs designed for children, such
>> >>>>>>>>>>> as the "Eddie Eagle GunSafe" program. I would say the NRA
>> >>>>>>>>>>> is far better equipped to do that sort of thing than
>> >>>>>>>>>>> pediatricians are.http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't want gun safety mentioned in doctor's offices, but
>> >>>>>>>>>> it's OK to make it a school subject? *Why is it OK to allow
>> >>>>>>>>>> a teacher to present the program to your kids, but not a
>> >>>>>>>>>> doctor?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Because gun safety is not something reasonably associated with
>> >>>>>>>>> medical expertise. More than 50 times as many people are
>> >>>>>>>>> killed in automobile accidents than in gun accidents, but you
>> >>>>>>>>> don't see doctors teaching anyone about driving safety, do
>> >>>>>>>>> you?
>>
>> >>>>>>>> They do teach parents about general child safety in the home
>> >>>>>>>> and in the car. Why would they teach parents about covering
>> >>>>>>>> outlets and locking cabinets and anchoring bookcases, but not
>> >>>>>>>> mention keeping the gun away from the kid and keeping the
>> >>>>>>>> bullets away from it in case the kid does get to the thing?
>>
>> >>>>>>> Because the liberals don't want to even admit that keeping a gun
>> >>>>>>> handy is an option. So to legitimize it by talking about its
>> >>>>>>> safety would not be an option either.
>>
>> >>>>>> Wow. You're so focused on your phantom conspiracies you didn't
>> >>>>>> even notice it's the conservatives that don't want doctors
>> >>>>>> talking to patients about home gun safety.
>>
>> >>>>> Get out! Doctors talking about gun safety has to be a liberal
>> >>>>> thing. How many doctors know anything at all about gun safety?
>> >>>>> Its the liberals who think they know everything, and are right up
>> >>>>> front when it comes to making laws about it, too.
>>
>> >>>> I know of at least three doctors and two dentists who are perfectly
>> >>>> capable of dealing with all aspects of firearms education. From
>> >>>> the art of shooting to the discipline of safety.
>>
>> >>> My high school chemistry teacher was qualified to teach someone to
>> >>> fly a B-24 bomber, and my high school English teacher was qualified
>> >>> to teach Marines how to fight.
>>
>> >>> So on that basis, by your reasoning, you should be able to stick any
>> >>> random high school chemistry teacher in a four engine bomber and
>> >>> expect her to be able to fly it, or stick any random high school
>> >>> English teacher in front of a bunch of Marine recruits and expect
>> >>> them to end up combat ready.
>>
>> >>> Yes, there are physicians who are qualified firearms instructors. But is
>> >>> that the normal situation for physicians? * If not then what
>> >>> relevance do a few special cases have?
>>
>> >> I've followed the Florida controversy over this since the beginning.
>> >> There has *never* been any suggestion by either side that
>> >> pediatricians are or should be providing gun safety training.
>>
>> >> What some pediatricians have done, and what the NRA objects to, is
>> >> ask the parents if there is a gun in the house and if they are
>> >> following good gun safety procedures. *The pediatricians are merely
>> >> trying to make the parent more aware of the need to protect the
>> >> child from harm. What is being objected to is no more than a verbal
>> >> reminder that the
>> >> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
>> >> are not followed. *The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
>> >> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
>> >> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
>> >> mention the word "gun".
>>
>> > It's none of the doctor's business. *Are they as concerned if there
>> > are proper precautions taken in case of a fire? *Do they ask if there
>> > are escape ladders and an evacuation plan and have they had a fire
>> > drill? *It's more likely that they are injured from a fire than any
>> > firearms accident but the doctors don't seem to be concerned with
>> > that.
>>
>> Well, so far the doctors only have the power of the pen. they are only able
>> to withold or missprescribe the wrong medications. But it wouldn't surprise
>> me if the liberals gave them the power of life and death over us as a matter
>> of active practice.
>> Why not let them force us to eat what they want us to eat, and live the way
>> they want us to live? After all, once you have chosen a God, you should live
>> by His rules......
>
>Maybe you've hit the nail on the head who chose a man to be their
>God ?
>I haven;t chosen a religion, most are born into one.
>Did God give americans the right to bear arms

They say he said "though shalt not kill".

(I hear Huckabee has said that US law should be based on the bible,
and I'm curious how he plans to apply that to our national defense
policy.)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:12:07 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:59:28 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>And you're prepared to certify, based on your own personal knowledge of
>>>any
>>>and all pediatricians who do this, that they absolutely have no other
>>>motive
>>>such as anti-gun activism? That they also "make the parent more aware of"
>>>other far more likely dangers to the child, such as falling, choking,
>>>drowning, etc., etc.?
>>
>> Yes, my own personal knowledge of my grandchildren's pediatrician
>
>That's a bit shy of "any and all pediatricians," Tony.
>
>> includes being there when the doctor has covered subjects like safety
>> issues in the home. Not the gun issue, but other subjects.
>>
>> Why is making a parent aware of gun safety procedures "anti-gun
>> activism"? Is the NRA's "Eddy Eagle" program "anti-gun activism"
>> because it covers safety precautions?
>>
>>>> What is being objected to is no more than a verbal reminder that the
>>>> guns that adults own can be a danger to children if proper procedures
>>>> are not followed. The NRA takes the position that the pediatrician
>>>> can ask if there are electrical outlets in the house, and if the
>>>> parents are using the proper covers, but the pediatrician can't
>>>> mention the word "gun".
>>>
>>>Please provide a cite showing where "the NRA takes the position that" you
>>>claim it does. By a cite of course I mean something from the NRA
>>>themselves,
>>>not from some NRA-hating editorial writer.
>>>
>> How about a quote from Marion Hammer? You'll find some at:
>> http://saintpetersblog.com/2011/02/r...iation-vs-nra/
>
>Did you actually read the article you're citing? Did you get to the end,
>including this part?
>
>-----------------------------------------
>But for several members of the committee, it came down to a matter of
>privacy. Lawmakers largely said they couldn't understand why doctors would
>need to ask about guns, even if it involved a criminal action.
>
>Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, who has generally supported gun control
>legislation, said he was looking for a reason to vote against the bill, but
>couldn't figure out why doctors would need to ask whether their patients own
>guns.
>
>"That would be a question more for law enforcement," Smith said. "I don't
>see why the doctor has to be involved in that."
>
>--------------------------------------
>
>And note, that's a state senator "who has generally SUPPORTED gun control
>legislation" (emphasis added). Doesn't sound like one of the politicians
>you've implied have been intimidated by the NRA.

The real question that should be asked when deciding whether to vote
for this law is: why should they be barred from asking that?

There are lots of things a doctor and patient will talk about in the
course of a visit that have nothing to do with even the reason for the
visit. Over time people get to know each other and just talk. Why bar
this topic? Definitely a free speech issue here.