Solarian League Breakup?

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:20:30 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

regarding my "sheltered" life i've so far been shot once, slashed cut
etc a number of times and i've even managed to get blown up a few
times with things ranging from black powder to vinyl powder. been set
on fire several times though not badly so far and been in mva in
various cars, bikes and yes even a bulldozer.


>Most of the crime and violence is against people who are prohibited from
>legally owning firearms for one reason or another. People known to own
>and carry guns live surprisingly peaceful lives, so long as they are
>polite.
>
>More tsunami warnings, I'll have to post this without further editing.

there is truth to the idea that an armed populace is a polite
populace. i could even handle living with an armed populace if
everyone had a certain minimal skill level at putting bullets where
they were supposed to go under stress and enough sense to know when it
was appropriate to produce a firearm.

given either seems fairly rare in the populace at large though i think
i'm safer with fewer guns roaming about.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:40:28 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan DeleteThis @gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:35:49 GMT, Brian McDonald
><Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>i'm thinking that gun ownership in the usa indicates a grave lack of
>>perceived personal security. the number of people who for pragmatic
>>reasons actually need a firearm or two is not going to account for
>>more than a tiny number of firearms. by pragmatic i mean cops,
>>ranchers etc who may actually need a gun at some point. you then get
>>target shooters and hunters which account for a fairish chunk but you
>>still have a rather large number of people who seem to think having
>>guns will somehow make them "safer".
>
>I was reading some backgreound info for something i was writing for a
>fanzine piece, and i discovered that the original Thompson - the
>"Chicago typewriter" model - was apparently quite popular with
>ranchers and such back in the day.

ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Brian McDonald wrote:
>
> ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
> thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?

First, they are supposed to be fun, and the open country makes accidents
less likely. (I'm not a fan of full auto.)

Second, to paraphrase FerFAL (Fernando from Argentina), you generally
cannot tell the bad guys from the good guys from several hundred yards
away, so a long range rifle is not really of much use for defensive
work. (Assuming a survivalist situation, civilians, or "illegal
combatants", against civilians.)

I recommend checking his first hand account of life in a collapsing nation:

http://www.buildanark.net/survival_stories/ferfal1_1.html

I have no expertise on the issue, but someone confronting a group while
armed with a hand gun is supposed to be less likely to be successful
than someone holding a shotgun. If that belief is common, people might
think a sub machine gun is a good substitute for the shotgun.

Would Pancho Villa's gang be likely to get within range?

As I believe I mentioned here a few years back (to you?), country people
were once highly hospitable to others of their own race before the
Bonnie and Clyde era. Other gangs, besides B&C, were also driving out
from the big city to find isolated farms and ranches to rob. Country
people already had firearms (and a low violence level), so they took to
greeting strangers at gun point, and the practice, ah, "died out".

A few gangs have tested the waters, driving out from Seattle and
Portland. A few survivors have trickled back to spread the word that the
country bumpkins are still armed.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Offbreed kirjoitti:
> Brian McDonald wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:21:30 -0700, Offbreed
>>> You've lived a sheltered life. Some of us have not been so lucky.
>> i live in a civilized country is all. the rest of the developed world
>> outgrew this wild west nonsense a good ways back.

> No, the global news media has told a number of lies. The US is violent
> because we have enclaves of violent minorities that are large enough to
> reach critical mass. Remove the violent minorities from the statistics
> and the US has less crime and violence, and less crime and violence
> involving firearms, than Europe does. For some reason, the global news
> media does not cover that.

Interesting - do you have a reason to assume that the rest of the world
doesn't have similar violent minorities? Europe certainly does have. And
the global news media doesn't mention that very much, either.

> Most of the crime and violence is against people who are prohibited from
> legally owning firearms for one reason or another.

That might just be because most people (globally...) might be prohibited
from legally owning firearms, anyway?

> People known to own
> and carry guns live surprisingly peaceful lives, so long as they are
> polite.

Ah, but which is the cause and which is the effect? See also this year's
report from the Small Arms Survey... people who live peaceful lives are
more likely to be able to get guns legally.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Mikko Nahkola wrote:

> Interesting - do you have a reason to assume that the rest of the world
> doesn't have similar violent minorities? Europe certainly does have. And
> the global news media doesn't mention that very much, either.

True, and the lack of coverage of violence in other countries, as
compared to the coverage of violence in the US gives the impression the
US is extremely violent. Oh, and the news media is, IMO, correct on one
point: More coverage of a behavior can encourage that behavior in
others. The low coverage of any violence in Europe would keep the
majority from using informal violence to suppress the violent
minorities. The violent minorities would use internal information
channels to pass word that they were getting away with violence and
crime, and encourage other members to emulate the behavior.

If Ringo's comments on the issue have any truth to them, Paris has a
powder keg or three.

I regard violent anti social people a bit like cancer cells. They can be
dealt with in isolation or in small groups, but an enclave provides
less "social surface area" and they protect each other by proximity. The
larger the enclave, the more they protect each other. I understand the
Watts area of Los Angeles is /still/ trashed, and inhabited by barbarians.


>> Most of the crime and violence is against people who are prohibited
>> from legally owning firearms for one reason or another.
>
> That might just be because most people (globally...) might be prohibited
> from legally owning firearms, anyway?
>
I was thinking of "within the US" for that part. It resolves some of the
comparison problems regarding national laws, race, and culture. As an
example, even in the states with CCW, the mass violence is most likely
in areas that prohibit CCW, such as Virginian Tech.

I read a story about a group of Jews convincing themselves to put up a
"No Firearms" sign on the Synagogue. Finally, one of them pops up, "and
we should word it 'This building is full of unarmed Jews who cannot
protect themselves'." No further discussion, and no sign.

>> People known to own and carry guns live surprisingly peaceful lives,
>> so long as they are polite.
>
> Ah, but which is the cause and which is the effect? See also this year's
> report from the Small Arms Survey...

What "Small Arms Survey", and who did the work? The UN?

Honest comparisons of violence levels in different countries involves
enough factors to give me a migraine just to consider, and there is
always the hidden chauvinism, bias, and out right bigotry. Not so hidden
when it comes to the UN.

> people who live peaceful lives are
> more likely to be able to get guns legally.

(snort) Don't most countries have laws related to the violent obtaining
firearms?

If violence is linked to the ready availability of firearms, wouldn't
that be a negative feedback link reducing the number of people able to
legally obtain firearms due to the formerly peaceful people becoming
uncontrolled, violent maniacs? (Oh, and in what countries? Can these
people use the firearms for self defense? Can they carry the firearms?
Long guns, or hand guns?)

I think we started to drift here. Perhaps I should have worded it that
"criminals are less likely to bother those suspected of being armed, so
long as that person behaves and does not intrude on the criminal's
enterprises (is not, for example, a competitor or a cop)."
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Brian McDonald wrote:

> seems it would be easier to do something about the gangs but your
> "justice" system is as screwed up as canada's i understand.
> be a heck of a thing if we went back to actually punishing criminals
> wouldn't it. we passed a law some years ago to discourage the use of
> firearms in crimes. i believe it was a flat 5 years extra time for
> using a firearm. turns out that in almost all cases the crown
> attorney trades that charge off to get a confession on a lesser charge
> and speed things through the system.

Why am I underwhelmed with surprise? Oh, well.

As I've posted elsewhere, I strongly suspect the real cause of increased
criminal violence is not gun control. Rather, it is what passing gun
control laws is currently a symptom of: an attitude among the law makers
currently in power that is going to result in changes to the legal
system that makes crime control less effective.

And, repeal of gun control in the US is probably a symptom of a loss of
power among those law makers who have been making changes that increase
crime.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:48:55 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Brian McDonald wrote:
>>
>> ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
>> thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?
>
>First, they are supposed to be fun, and the open country makes accidents
>less likely. (I'm not a fan of full auto.)

i can see the fun element but as a practical weapon a thompson i'd
think would be pretty useless compared to a shotgun.



>I have no expertise on the issue, but someone confronting a group while
>armed with a hand gun is supposed to be less likely to be successful
>than someone holding a shotgun. If that belief is common, people might
>think a sub machine gun is a good substitute for the shotgun.

shotgun trumps pistol by a large margin and shotguns have a psych
effect rather out of proportion to their actual effectiveness from
what i've read.
was i looking at home defense i'd want a nice 12 gauge pump with a
duckbill choke and say number 4 shot.


>A few gangs have tested the waters, driving out from Seattle and
>Portland. A few survivors have trickled back to spread the word that the
>country bumpkins are still armed.

seems it would be easier to do something about the gangs but your
"justice" system is as screwed up as canada's i understand.
be a heck of a thing if we went back to actually punishing criminals
wouldn't it. we passed a law some years ago to discourage the use of
firearms in crimes. i believe it was a flat 5 years extra time for
using a firearm. turns out that in almost all cases the crown
attorney trades that charge off to get a confession on a lesser charge
and speed things through the system.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:i2nje3d3irdisejm8jf43i1bbrkcv1peug@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:48:55 -0700, Offbreed
> <offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Brian McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
>>> thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?
>>
>>First, they are supposed to be fun, and the open country makes accidents
>>less likely. (I'm not a fan of full auto.)
>
> i can see the fun element but as a practical weapon a thompson i'd
> think would be pretty useless compared to a shotgun.
>
>
>
>>I have no expertise on the issue, but someone confronting a group while
>>armed with a hand gun is supposed to be less likely to be successful
>>than someone holding a shotgun. If that belief is common, people might
>>think a sub machine gun is a good substitute for the shotgun.
>
> shotgun trumps pistol by a large margin and shotguns have a psych
> effect rather out of proportion to their actual effectiveness from
> what i've read.
> was i looking at home defense i'd want a nice 12 gauge pump with a
> duckbill choke and say number 4 shot.
>
>
>>A few gangs have tested the waters, driving out from Seattle and
>>Portland. A few survivors have trickled back to spread the word that the
>>country bumpkins are still armed.
>
> seems it would be easier to do something about the gangs but your
> "justice" system is as screwed up as canada's i understand.
> be a heck of a thing if we went back to actually punishing criminals
> wouldn't it. we passed a law some years ago to discourage the use of
> firearms in crimes. i believe it was a flat 5 years extra time for
> using a firearm. turns out that in almost all cases the crown
> attorney trades that charge off to get a confession on a lesser charge
> and speed things through the system.

I'm not a gun person, but I'd say that the mere sound of a pump shotgun
(i.e. the "click-clack") has got to put the fear of god into anyone who
really shouldn't be there.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

Offbreed kirjoitti:
> Mikko Nahkola wrote:

>> Interesting - do you have a reason to assume that the rest of the
>> world doesn't have similar violent minorities? Europe certainly does
>> have. And the global news media doesn't mention that very much, either.
>
> True, and the lack of coverage of violence in other countries, as
> compared to the coverage of violence in the US gives the impression the
> US is extremely violent. Oh, and the news media is, IMO, correct on one
> point: More coverage of a behavior can encourage that behavior in
.....
> If Ringo's comments on the issue have any truth to them, Paris has a
> powder keg or three.

Is there a big city anywhere that doesn't have a powder keg or three?

Powder being relatively benign to begin with, compared to...

>>> People known to own and carry guns live surprisingly peaceful lives,
>>> so long as they are polite.
>>
>> Ah, but which is the cause and which is the effect? See also this
>> year's report from the Small Arms Survey...
>
> What "Small Arms Survey", and who did the work? The UN?
> Honest comparisons of violence levels in different countries involves
> enough factors to give me a migraine just to consider, and there is
> always the hidden chauvinism, bias, and out right bigotry. Not so hidden
> when it comes to the UN.

Supposed to be an independent research project (yeah, right) -
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org . This year's report looks (from the
freely available summaries) like they may be getting a little less
biased - they actually admit that violence isn't linked to firearms
availability.

>> people who live peaceful lives are more likely to be able to get guns
>> legally.
>
> (snort) Don't most countries have laws related to the violent obtaining
> firearms?

A lot of countries have complicated laws related to _anyone_ obtaining
firearms.
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:48:44 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>there is truth to the idea that an armed populace is a polite
>populace. i could even handle living with an armed populace if
>everyone had a certain minimal skill level at putting bullets where
>they were supposed to go under stress and enough sense to know when it
>was appropriate to produce a firearm.
>
>given either seems fairly rare in the populace at large though i think
>i'm safer with fewer guns roaming about.

Boy howdy.

--
mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:49:58 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:40:28 -0400, mike weber <fairportfan RemoveThis @gmail.com>
>wrote:
>

>>I was reading some backgreound info for something i was writing for a
>>fanzine piece, and i discovered that the original Thompson - the
>>"Chicago typewriter" model - was apparently quite popular with
>>ranchers and such back in the day.
>
>ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
>thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?

Consider that official law enforcement in the pre-radio,
pre-everyone-has-a-telephone days was sort of spotty Out West in
ranching country (if you could be sure who to call - i read somewhere
that the King Ranch takes in all or parts of four counties...), and
the do-it-uourself variety was still fairly popular.

And the right tools are always important in DIY.

That said, it was apparently at least partly due to advertising
creating a perceived need: http://electronictiger.com/avail/cowboy.gif
(love the chaps).

--
mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:02:59 GMT, Brian McDonald
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:48:55 -0700, Offbreed
><offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Brian McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> ok that's demented. what would a rancher be shooting at where a
>>> thompson would be the appropriate choice i wonder?
>>
>>First, they are supposed to be fun, and the open country makes accidents
>>less likely. (I'm not a fan of full auto.)
>
>i can see the fun element but as a practical weapon a thompson i'd
>think would be pretty useless compared to a shotgun.
>
Actually, take a fifty or hundred round drum, and you get lot of the
advantages of a shotgun, plus greater range, potential greater
accuracy and an Impressiveness Factor (particularly in the dark or
semi-dark) even exceeding that of a shotgun...

I've seen/heard a drum-fed Tommy in action. It's Impressive as hell.
And that was from *behind* the firing line.

--
mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup? 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:54:48 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton DeleteThis @biteme2.com> wrote:

>I'm not a gun person, but I'd say that the mere sound of a pump shotgun
>(i.e. the "click-clack") has got to put the fear of god into anyone who
>really shouldn't be there.

You oughta hear the bolt on an M16 - from in front.

--
mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Solarian League Breakup?