Found it! You were right ITRADE. I stand corrected. (I still wouldnt want to
be downrange from one)

50 Caliber Specs.

Bore diameter: .50 inches (12.7mm)

Maximum effective range: 7,450 yards (That's 75 football fields laid end-to-end)

Maximum Range: 4.22 miles

Penetration: The most regularly used round of .50 caliber ammunition is called the "ball." According to the U.S. Army, ball ammunition is so powerful it can penetrate one inch of concrete, six inches of sand, and 21 inches of clay at a range of 1,640 yards. The deadliest .50 caliber ammunition is the Raufoss multi-purpose round. These bullets combine armor-piercing, explosive, and incendiary effects for maximum destruction. The United States Marine Corps notes that the Raufoss multi-purpose round can penetrate an inch of steel at 2000 yards. Additionally, International Defense Review estimates that the round is "probably capable of disabling a man wearing body armor who is standing behind the wall of a house at 2,000 meters." The impact of these rounds are so horrific that in 1998 the International Committee of the Red Cross tried to have the round declared an "exploding bullet" banned under international law. An excerpt from Sniper: The Skills, the Weapons, and the Experience provides an example of how the U.S. military exploited its tremendous firepower during the Gulf War: "The Barrett M82A1 was used in the Gulf War; a hundred rifles were rushed to the Marine Corps in time to see action in the desert. In one engagement, Sergeant Kenneth Terry of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, hit and knocked out an Iraqi BMP armored personnel carrier with two armor-piercing incendiary rounds at a range of 1100 meters."

Re - the Barrett, oh this is most excellent stuff:

According to Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned (LTC Jim Smith 15 May 2003) "The Barrett 50 cal Sniper Rifle may have been the most useful piece of equipment for the urban fight – especially for our light fighters. The XM107 was used to engage both vehicular and personnel targets out to 1400 meters. Soldiers not only appreciated the range and accuracy but also the target effect. Leaders and scouts viewed the effect of the 50 cal round as a combat multiplier due to the psychological impact on other combatants that viewed the destruction of the target.

“My spotter positively identified a target at 1400 meters carrying an RPG on a water tower. I engaged the target. The top half of the torso fell forward out of the tower and the lower portion remained in the tower.” 325th PIR Sniper

"There were other personal anecdotes of one round destroying two targets and another of the target “disintegrating.”


Ooh-rah!

that's one badass rifle.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We''l just have to leave this issue be until the
> Supreme COurt decides what is meant by the 2nd
> Amendmant. and Conny...I have no respect for a
> women who would risk the gains fought and gained
> by women before you. The men on here with their
> pumped up love for guns at least have lack of
> first hand knowledge when it comes to a women's
> reproductive rights...you have none!

So you know more about Conny's reproductive rights than she does?

And, oh, about the Supreme Court, I guess you give up on arguing on logic and are waiting for the cavalry to come to your rescue with a pro-gun control ruling. So typical of antis who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag to resort to the force of Big Brother when they can't handle it themselves.

Everything you believe in, Vince, is based on emotion, the wimpering, sobbing, kind. You have no logic to back up your arguments. You're in like company. The Million Mom March won't tolerate anyone at their meetings who isn't previously spoken for as being with the program. When nakedshoplifter showed up to peacefully, and silently, tape their meeting they packed up and crawled under a rock, like the cowards they are. They are rude, foul-mouthed, and insulting. I expect no less from you.

Arrogant self-loathing freedom-haters like you are the ones with the blood on your hands. VA Tech students were defenseless for two reasons: people like you who restricted their right to carry weapons on campus, and people like you program young people to think arming themselves is a vice as they grow up.

You would remake the entire nation in your own image: that of a sniveling coward who refuses to take responsibility for his own miserable life.

And, BTW, nakedshoplifter not only doesn't get paid a red cent for his activism in defense of YOUR liberty, he actually pays out of his pocket to do so.

You're welcome.

Had VT had a campus policy of concealed weapons permit bearers having the ability of possesing firearms, maybe there would not have been 32 DEAD victims. When laws prohibit the ability of law abiding gun owners to possess guns, they open their habitats to predators that would take advantage of them, cannon fodder, or sheep to slaughter. What dumb f*ck w/ a gun would go to a campus that allowed students to protect themselves with firearems? None, that's why (God Bless their souls) there where so many victims. I am a product of NoVa and Appalachia, I have a home protection weapon, because I have kids and know that if some crazy a%$hole wants to break into my home, and do my family wrong, I won't have to sit in a corner and cower. I can and will take action! These anti-gun activists should understand that the first Gun Control Activist were truly Nazi, reason being, that no person could challenge their position, because they had no means with which to revolt. If you take away the law abiding citizen's right to own a firearm, then only OUTLAWS will possess them. God Bless the USA, we are the land of the free BECAUSE of the Brave!

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that's one badass rifle.


Showing up at a meeting...with a group of others...is nothing but intimidation! A tactic used by such terrorist groups such as the KKK. Nakedshoplifter is no hero...he is a bully sitting high on his pedestal wrapping the flag of patriotism around himself...as always self proclaimed patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Cornerstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince,
> > Apparantly you don't know how to read,
> completely
> > ignore things that directly refute any of your
> > nonsensical and illogical ramblings, or are a
> > complete sexist pig that gets his jollies off
> by
> > demeaning women. My inclination is to believe
> > that it is a healthy combination of all three.
>
> >
> > In case you missed it, you misogynistic pond
> scum,
> > I NEVER EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, FAVORABLE OR
> > UNFAVORABLE, ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE.
>
> > Accordingly, you have no flipping clue what my
> > opinion is of that decision. I used the
> abortion
> > issue to simply point out that you believe
> > strongly in penumbral rights but not expressly
> > granted rights. I have news for you, you
> narrow
> > minded chauvinist donkey's rear, people in this
> > country can be pro-choice and pro-second
> > amendment!
> >
> > In parting, I am not sure if you are a sexist
> twit
> > because your mommy dressed you up in girly
> clothes
> > or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your
> > overbearing mother, and that left you with
> > enduring emotional scarring. Maybe your
> current
> > spouse wears the pants in the family, and the
> only
> > way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning
> > women on the internet. Whatever the scenario,
> I
> > can tell you one thing - this woman does not
> want
> > pea-brained, senile, jerkoff telling me what is
> > and is not best for me. Do you comprehend
> this?
>
> Bravo, Conny! I suppose Vince's sentiments of
> women's rights and liberation only extends to
> their bodies and not their minds. Talk about the
> objectification of women! I, for one, would have
> never pegged uber-liberal Vince as a blatent
> sexist, but if the shoe fits.....
>
> On another note, is "We''l just have to leave this
> issue be until the Supreme COurt decides what is
> meant by the 2nd Amendmant, (sic)" truly your
> final thoughts on this issue, Vince? Sounds to me
> like you started a conflict here with a piss poor
> exit strategy. I thought you hated that kind of
> thing.


Exit strategy? WTF? I stated my opinion...and all of you gun lovers came back with yours. I stand by my opinion....that guns in the 21st century do little to nothing to protect our freedoms...and that the state of VA is addicted to the money the gun lobby and tobacco industry bring into the state. I hope the Roberts Supreme Court will be to gun control what the Burger Supreme Court did for women's reproductive rights. There it is....my opinion...no exit strategy needed.

Thom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm
> only
> > those who are neither inclined nor determined
> to
> > commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for
> the
> > assaulted and better for the assailants; they
> > serve rather to encourage than to prevent
> > homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
> with
> > greater confidence than an armed man.
>
> Vince Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh...is that why most civilized countries in
> > Europe have a lower violence and fire arm
> assuats
> > then the US? Id close down every gun
> manuyfacture
> > and as guns are found...destroy them. However,
> > prior to that Id have every gun registered so
> as
> > to make it more difficult to establish a black
> > market for them.
>
> Sorry Vince, I wrote that in a little known
> manuscript I penned known as my "Commonplace Book"
> it was a quote from Cesare, Marquis of
> Beccaria-Bonesana, but I included it in my edition
> a full 11 years before becoming the principal
> author of one of my more well known works. You
> might know it as the Declaration of Independence.
> Funny you should mention Europe, because in that
> document, I cast off the chains of tyranny and
> oppression of European monarchies. Later, I
> supported the ratification of the Constitution
> despite the lack of inclusion of a bill of rights.
> My friends, Mr. Madison and Mr. Mason fought
> ardently to have the Constitution amended to
> include a bill of rights. To ignore the right to
> bear arms, Vince, is to ignore our national
> history and all liberties guaranteed under our
> constitution - including the right to free speech,
> no matter how repulsive it is the sense of law
> abiding gun owners.
>
> A contemporary of mine, Mr. Washington said:
>
> Firearms stand next in importance to the
> Constitution itself. They are the American
> people's liberty, teeth and keystone under
> independence. The church, the plow, the prairie
> wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly
> related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the
> present day, events, occurrences and tendencies
> prove that, to ensure peace, security and
> happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
> indispensable. Every corner of this land knows
> firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of
> them by their silence indicate that they are in
> safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of
> firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
> influence. They deserve a place of honor with all
> that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need
> them every hour


What utter and complete non-sense! Show me one instance where in the last 100 years where a gun protected an individuals freedom against the incringement of the federal or state government! Seems to me the days of armed resistance are over...replaced by peaceful civil disobedience. This country would be better off if every gun could be rounded up and destroyed.

Maeve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Had VT had a campus policy of concealed weapons
> permit bearers having the ability of possesing
> firearms, maybe there would not have been 32 DEAD
> victims. When laws prohibit the ability of law
> abiding gun owners to possess guns, they open
> their habitats to predators that would take
> advantage of them, cannon fodder, or sheep to
> slaughter. What dumb f*ck w/ a gun would go to a
> campus that allowed students to protect themselves
> with firearems? None, that's why (God Bless their
> souls) there where so many victims. I am a product
> of NoVa and Appalachia, I have a home protection
> weapon, because I have kids and know that if some
> crazy a%$hole wants to break into my home, and do
> my family wrong, I won't have to sit in a corner
> and cower. I can and will take action! These
> anti-gun activists should understand that the
> first Gun Control Activist were truly Nazi, reason
> being, that no person could challenge their
> position, because they had no means with which to
> revolt. If you take away the law abiding citizen's
> right to own a firearm, then only OUTLAWS will
> possess them. God Bless the USA, we are the land
> of the free BECAUSE of the Brave!


All gun owners...legal and illegal are cowards...not Brave...they allow the "great equalizer' to settle their scores...allows them to take the low road.

Conny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince,
> Apparantly you don't know how to read, completely
> ignore things that directly refute any of your
> nonsensical and illogical ramblings, or are a
> complete sexist pig that gets his jollies off by
> demeaning women. My inclination is to believe
> that it is a healthy combination of all three.
>
> In case you missed it, you misogynistic pond scum,
> I NEVER EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, FAVORABLE OR
> UNFAVORABLE, ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE.
> Accordingly, you have no flipping clue what my
> opinion is of that decision. I used the abortion
> issue to simply point out that you believe
> strongly in penumbral rights but not expressly
> granted rights. I have news for you, you narrow
> minded chauvinist donkey's rear, people in this
> country can be pro-choice and pro-second
> amendment!
>
> In parting, I am not sure if you are a sexist twit
> because your mommy dressed you up in girly clothes
> or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your
> overbearing mother, and that left you with
> enduring emotional scarring. Maybe your current
> spouse wears the pants in the family, and the only
> way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning
> women on the internet. Whatever the scenario, I
> can tell you one thing - this woman does not want
> pea-brained, senile, jerkoff telling me what is
> and is not best for me. Do you comprehend this?


Come on Conny stop playing games. Like many on here you make statements without really statting they are your opinion. Of course someone can be pre-choice and pro-gun. But is that your opinion? I applaud your statement that you dont want some jerkoff telling you what it is that is best for you! I just dont get the feeling that really applies to other women's reproductive rights. So Conny...are you pro-gun and are you pro-choice?

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conny Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vince,
> > Apparantly you don't know how to read,
> completely
> > ignore things that directly refute any of your
> > nonsensical and illogical ramblings, or are a
> > complete sexist pig that gets his jollies off
> by
> > demeaning women. My inclination is to believe
> > that it is a healthy combination of all three.
>
> >
> > In case you missed it, you misogynistic pond
> scum,
> > I NEVER EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, FAVORABLE OR
> > UNFAVORABLE, ABOUT THE COURT'S DECISION IN ROE.
>
> > Accordingly, you have no flipping clue what my
> > opinion is of that decision. I used the
> abortion
> > issue to simply point out that you believe
> > strongly in penumbral rights but not expressly
> > granted rights. I have news for you, you
> narrow
> > minded chauvinist donkey's rear, people in this
> > country can be pro-choice and pro-second
> > amendment!
> >
> > In parting, I am not sure if you are a sexist
> twit
> > because your mommy dressed you up in girly
> clothes
> > or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your
> > overbearing mother, and that left you with
> > enduring emotional scarring. Maybe your
> current
> > spouse wears the pants in the family, and the
> only
> > way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning
> > women on the internet. Whatever the scenario,
> I
> > can tell you one thing - this woman does not
> want
> > pea-brained, senile, jerkoff telling me what is
> > and is not best for me. Do you comprehend
> this?
>
>
> Come on Conny stop playing games. Like many on
> here you make statements without really statting
> they are your opinion. Of course someone can be
> pre-choice and pro-gun. But is that your opinion?
> I applaud your statement that you dont want some
> jerkoff telling you what it is that is best for
> you! I just dont get the feeling that really
> applies to other women's reproductive rights. So
> Conny...are you pro-gun and are you pro-choice?


You're stupid.

I found the following discussion on the home defense issue interesting....

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families

And then there's the sexist aspect of guns....and violence in general...

Of all the murders of females in 2002, family members were responsible
for 43%. Add on top of that shootings which didnt result in deaths...other forms of sexual abuse and family that goes on behind family doors. It is safe to say that if you are a female...you dont need a gun to protect yourself from attack by a stranger...you need one to protect yourself from the male pin heads on here that use patriotism and home/self defense as an excuse to have their offensive weapon of choice.

I am Vince. I am a stupid NeoLib who thinks the government knows how to run your lives better than you do.

All gun owners are stupid. George Washington is stupid because he owned a gun. Same with Abe Lincoln. Thomas Jefferson too.

Dulles gun show next weekend, see you there

say what Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dulles gun show next weekend, see you there

This is exactly my point....it's all about the 30 silver shillings!

Ive got plenty to burn.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ive got plenty to burn.

You're stupid.

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders is nothing but BS. Here is some interesting information that everyone should be aware of. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms. In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home. Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140201755681&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT&ih=004


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140201755681&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT&ih=004



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140201755681&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT&ih=004





http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=140201755681&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT&ih=004

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue of "home defense" or protection against
> intruders is nothing but BS. Here is some
> interesting information that everyone should be
> aware of. Of 626 shootings in or around a
> residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for
> every time a gun in the home was used in a
> self-defense or legally justifiable shooting,
> there were four unintentional shootings, seven
> criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted
> or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households
> in the U.S. admit to having firearms. In another
> study, regardless of storage practice, type of
> gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a
> gun in the home was associated with an increased
> risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home.
> Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of
> intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely
> to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner.
> It would appear that, rather than beign used for
> defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on
> the owners and their families

Your're stupid.

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come on Conny stop playing games. Like many on
> here you make statements without really statting
> they are your opinion. Of course someone can be
> pre-choice and pro-gun. But is that your opinion?
> I applaud your statement that you dont want some
> jerkoff telling you what it is that is best for
> you! I just dont get the feeling that really
> applies to other women's reproductive rights. So
> Conny...are you pro-gun and are you pro-choice?


Vince, no offense intended here, but you obviously are not intelligent enough to understand the points I was making in my previous posts. My positions on guns and abortion are irrelevant. I was simply pointing out your hypocrisy. I will reiterate that hypocrisy again for your edification. I was pointing out "how easy it is for you to recognize penumbral rights not stated explicitly anywhere in the constitution or amendments while summarily dismissing an explicitly granted right guarenteed by the second amendment."

I will make you a deal though, I will tell you if I am for against legal abortions if you answer my question about why you are a sexist. Are you a sexist twit because your mommy dressed you up in girly clothes or your daddy was a subservient sissy to your overbearing mother, and that left you with enduring emotional scarring or is it because your current spouse wears the pants in the family, and the only way you can get off is by anonymously demeaning women on the internet?

I think Vince has a hard on for gun control.
Attachments:

Vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What utter and complete non-sense! Show me one
> instance where in the last 100 years where a gun
> protected an individuals freedom against the
> incringement of the federal or state government!
> Seems to me the days of armed resistance are
> over...replaced by peaceful civil disobedience.
> This country would be better off if every gun
> could be rounded up and destroyed.

Vince, I am sorry that the notions of the founding father's regarding individual liberty is so repulsive to you (please, no slavery comments). You want examples? Have you ever heard of the West Virginia Mine Wars of 1913 where local governments, lead by Kanawha County Sheriff Bonner Hill opened fire on striking workers? Or, the atrocities committed six years later by WV Logan County Sheriff Don Chafin against mine workers?

Believe me Conny...I understand your point exactly...you see the 2nd Amendment as clearly defending an individuals right to own a firearm...and evidently you believe the Constitution is ambiguous on a women's right of privacy between herself and her Doctor. Do you care to clarify your position further?

Let me state my point...the 2nd Amendment is anything but clearly written. My opinion is that it gives each state the right to organize and arm a militia (the State national Guards). Individuals do not have the right to bare arms guaranteed to them in the Constitution. Neither is there a rational reason for any individual to own a gun. We do not have the right to violently overthrow the US Government and a gun is an ineffective tool for home/personal protection. Every state and the District of Columbia have the right to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms. And the only reason VA has such lenient laws is money. I am convinced that even if there was some way to have stopped the VA Tech shootings by some form of gun control...the gun money in VA would kill it. They obviously love their blood money then any of our or their children.

Now regarding my sexist remark...I am far from a sexist....and yes it was a sexist remark! Unfortunately, when one wallows with swine you pick up some mud along the way. If I offended you...I apologize. Now...answer the simple question...What is your position on Gun Control and a Women's Right to choose?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2008 11:02AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue of "home defense" or protection against
> intruders is nothing but BS. Here is some
> interesting information...SNIP

Most of that stuff has been discredited by Lott and others. So much for the utilitarian argument for gun control.

In any case, unless you can show reasonable susipicion or have evidence that I or any other person is, as an individual, unfit to exercise a particular freedom, you have no business restricting or eliminating that freedom.

My rights do not hinge upon the foolishness of irresponsible gunowners, or upon the emotional irrationality of people like you, who starts out a conversation by lying about "reasonable gun control" and very quickly loses his cool, spills the beans and reveals that his agenda all along was a total gun ban.

Just relax and enjoy your freedom. It won't hurt you, silly.

nakedshoplifter: thanks for scarring me with that image...

Naked...is this another example of you expressing your freedom of speech? You are a real American hero! I find it very disturbing that you would have such a picture involving minors.

Tomahawk...how about referencing Lott's repudiation of the info I provided? And oh by the way...how does Mr Lott make a living? Does he/she also have blood on his hands by being a "professional" defender of our supposed rights?

No I havent heard of those instances of Uniob members being shot by law enforcemnt officials...and please tell me more. It seems to me from what you wrote that it is also an example of how power and guns are misused by law enforcement and should investigated. Thank god today we at least have civil rights laws that might result in the prosecution of those officials. Please be sure to explain how the miners armed resistance solved the problem?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2008 11:16AM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tomahawk...how about referencing Lott's
> repudiation of the info I provided? And oh by the
> way...how does Mr Lott make a living? Does he/she
> also have blood on his hands by being a
> "professional" defender of our supposed rights?


My mistake, it wasn't Lott (who is an author and an economics professor, IIRC).

Here are some links:

Odds of dying from various causes:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2257

Unintentional injuries chart:
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2256

Flaw in Kellerman study:
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331

The last link is to a website you will reflexively want to reject, but you should read it anyway. A key paragraph is this:

"How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed."

In other words, for every criminal that is killed by a gun in self defense, 1000 incidents of self-defense occurred which did not result in a criminal's death. Most of these do not get reported, of course, because a story about a mugger or a burgler who runs away when he sees a gun is not sensational.

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tomahawk...how about referencing Lott's
> > repudiation of the info I provided? And oh by
> the
> > way...how does Mr Lott make a living? Does
> he/she
> > also have blood on his hands by being a
> > "professional" defender of our supposed rights?
>
>
> My mistake, it wasn't Lott (who is an author and
> an economics professor, IIRC).
>
> Here are some links:
>
> Odds of dying from various causes:
> http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
> http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2257
>
> Unintentional injuries chart:
> http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2256
>
> Flaw in Kellerman study:
> http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
> m.asp?ID=2331
>
> The last link is to a website you will reflexively
> want to reject, but you should read it anyway. A
> key paragraph is this:
>
> "How many successful self-defense events do not
> result in death of the criminal? An analysis by
> Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law
> and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 ) of successful
> defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack
> concluded that the criminal is killed in only one
> case in approximately every one thousand attacks.
> If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in
> the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a
> factor of a thousand and should be at least as
> small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the
> effectiveness of firearms as defense against
> criminal assault should incorporate every event
> where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated;
> thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal
> favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts
> only the one event in which the criminal is
> killed."
>
> In other words, for every criminal that is killed
> by a gun in self defense, 1000 incidents of
> self-defense occurred which did not result in a
> criminal's death. Most of these do not get
> reported, of course, because a story about a
> mugger or a burgler who runs away when he sees a
> gun is not sensational.


You know...I really wonder about people on here...actually quite often! How you can use as a reputable source of information/data an organization who MAKES MONEY solely by defending the uncontrolled use of fire arms is beyond me. I hope they enjoy their 30 schillings of silver! Soooo..its the right to bear arms group statististics versus the The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and the Athe New England Journal of Medicine). I wonder which organizations are more prone to take an objective view? The one that dissapears if guns dissapear or two of the most respected Journals in their respective areas that will be around even if guns dissapear?

The discussion to eliminate suicides from the statistics is right up there with a debate on "what the definition of is, is"! In the table it lists the odds during a persons lifehood of committing suicide by firearms as 1 in 169! That is an incredible and sobering statistic. It means that if 50 families (with an avg of 4 people per family) go out and buy a gun 1.2 of those families will experience a suicide by firearms incident! That is horrific...and anyone who brings a gun into their family knowing that is as guilty as sin of intentional murder.

Compare that statistic with the odds of your house ever being broken into. Add on top of that..if it is broken into the odds of you being there to even possibly use your gun, Add that to the odds of you being on the loosing end of that gun battle!

I know the Michael Vick stories and scarey...and there appears to be a simple solution in having a gun. BUT IT JUST AIN'T SO!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2008 03:13PM by Vince(1).

I can't help it if you won't read the link and seek out the source material CITED IN THE ARTICLE, dickhead.

You asked for the statistics and citations, and I gave them to you. Like the poltroon you are you reject them because they don't fit your version of reality.

You are hopeless. And the blood of defenseless victims everywhere is on your hands.

Tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't help it if you won't read the link and
> seek out the source material CITED IN THE ARTICLE,
> dickhead.
>
> You asked for the statistics and citations, and I
> gave them to you. Like the poltroon you are you
> reject them because they don't fit your version of
> reality.
>
> You are hopeless. And the blood of defenseless
> victims everywhere is on your hands.


Not a single original thought or conclusion on your part in your response...cant you think for yourself? Or can you only parrot the ideas of paid, self serving "experts"? What do you say to those 1.2 families out of 50? Your son, daughter, husband or wife's death is just the price we pay for the right to kill squirrels?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't help it if you won't read the link and
> > seek out the source material CITED IN THE
> ARTICLE,
> > dickhead.
> >
> > You asked for the statistics and citations, and
> I
> > gave them to you. Like the poltroon you are you
> > reject them because they don't fit your version
> of
> > reality.
> >
> > You are hopeless. And the blood of defenseless
> > victims everywhere is on your hands.
>
>
> Not a single original thought or conclusion on
> your part in your response...cant you think for
> yourself? Or can you only parrot the ideas of
> paid, self serving "experts"? What do you say to
> those 1.2 families out of 50? Your son, daughter,
> husband or wife's death is just the price we pay
> for the right to kill squirrels?


You're stupid.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tomahawk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't help it if you won't read the link and
> > seek out the source material CITED IN THE
> ARTICLE,
> > dickhead.
> >
> > You asked for the statistics and citations, and
> I
> > gave them to you. Like the poltroon you are you
> > reject them because they don't fit your version
> of
> > reality.
> >
> > You are hopeless. And the blood of defenseless
> > victims everywhere is on your hands.
>
>
> Not a single original thought or conclusion on
> your part in your response...cant you think for
> yourself? Or can you only parrot the ideas of
> paid, self serving "experts"? What do you say to
> those 1.2 families out of 50? Your son, daughter,
> husband or wife's death is just the price we pay
> for the right to kill squirrels?


Freedom's not an original thought. It's been around a lot longer than you and I.
I'll tell you what. You get the last word. Post another insult and have a nice day.

nakedshoplifter, he's all yours. I have to go cash my big fat check the gun industry is giving me for arguing with a knucklehead on a local website. ;-)

I gave up on Vince several days ago. He has extremist views, is a sexist, and reeks of authoritarianism. It's his way or the highway. He has preconceived notions of truth and nothing will prove him wrong.

On another note, anyone who's looking for an education on how we got to this point regarding the 2nd Amendment, I've attached a PDF file you can read. Very informative stuff put together by a regarded group.
Attachments: