Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Adopt a cat, which you can then use as an explanation for all sorts
    of strange noises.
    
    			Steve

    Reach for your gun and head for the bathroom making enough noise to let
    the "noise" leave.  Call 911 and explain the situation.
    
    If this doesn't work and you have ascertained that you are in imminent
    danger of loss of life, blow away the perp and make sure the cops know
    you were threatened, i.e., make it easy for the authorities to find the
    perp's weapon...

    Bubba,
    
    	Sounds like your doing a lead-in from your other note on violence.
    In what ever case. I am going for my pals, Mr. Smith and Mr. Weson. And
    if I see someone out of place, dial 911, and if they get stupid, dial
    1-800-DOA-DUDE. 
    
    George

    re .3
    
    		Sounds about right.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

.3> Sounds like your doing a lead-in from your other note on violence.

    Sho' 'nuf.  It was mentioned in that note and I thought it an
    interesting point of discussion ... I know how I would react and I was
    wondering how other men would react.  I even tried to be politically
    correct in the base note and said "wife" or "significant other" so as
    not to offend or omit anyone ... but noticed that I forgot to say
    "husband".  I would ASSUME that if it's a man and woman, the man would
    be expected to get up and handle the "situation"?

    Bubba

    re .0, if I were in bed at 2 am and heard a noise in the living room I
    would assume that either my roommate or my daughter were coming home
    from a late night out, or that the cats were raising cain, so I'd
    probably just go back to sleep.  If things really got scary, though, I
    guess I'd have to jump out the window since I don't keep either a gun,
    bible, phone or baseball bat in my bedroom.
    
    I'm usually alone or with 3 or 4 cats, but if I did happen to be in bed
    with a guy I'd let him handle it, especially if he were the macho type
    and into guns, etc.  I wouldn't want to deprive him of his 
    moment of glory protecting his woman.  (If he were the more pacifist
    type he could sneak out the window with me, though.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Usually is us who gets up to see if the booogie man is under the bed,
    or down stairs walking off with the house hold stuff. Being a landlord,
    I do not carry a gun. And I am stupid enough to go to the problem area
    and settle it. I wish not to sound like a braggard, but.... The folks 
    in my nieghborhood don't mess with my house or the tenants who live
    there. And my tenants don't mess with me. Must be the weights.....

    I designed my house for protection. If there was an intruder, I am in a
    good position. The chimney goes right up through my bedroom. I can hide
    behind it and to someone coming up the stairs, it is behind a wall. 
    	The plan is to reach out into the hall and flip on the light for
    the stairs (after I have loaded the gun(s). Ask who is there. Ask names
    of children etc. Get my handgrenade (dummy), pull the pin and let it
    roll down the stairs. 
    	If I am really convinced that someone is there, I will shoot low
    into the back wall of the small closet in the M bedroom. This will blow
    the sheetrock all over the stairwell. I now move behind the chimney.
    Wait, maybe, then maybe go down stairs.
    
    I would only call the police after the gun was loaded. I like the idea
    of announcing that I have shot an intruder. That might speed up the
    response time...
    
    Steve

    We have both upstairs and downstairs bedrooms. I feel it would be my
    responsibility to go downstairs and find out what is going on. My wife
    would never let me have a gun in the house. I would hope that my bat
    would be enough.
    I would expect my wife to stay upstairs prepared to dial 911.
    
    Will those people who are following this discussion "raise their hands"
    if there has been an intruder in their house who waked them up while
    they were sleeping?

    ...the sign of a hand raising...

My first reaction is to try to figure out what he cause of the noise was.  I
don't have any pets to blame it on, but I can usually figure it out if it just
one of those noises that houses makes.  Failing that, I'd turn on the lights
(via remote control) and go down to investigate.  I don't think that I would
remember to pick up the old broom stick that I occaisionally use for my kobudo
practice, so if I had to defend myself it would be hand-to-hand.  If there
really was someone down there, then chances are they would be frighted off by
the lights coming on and they would quickly make their exit.

The broom stick is much more useful than a baseball bat would be - it's longer
and thinner (better for poking).  While it lacks the mass of the bat, I'll trade
technique over mass any day.

Rich

    Two raised hands.
    
    Speaking of raised hands, a gun would've been worthless in both cases.
    
    Ray

    .13
    
    In one case def, not a good point to have a gun. But in the sec
    incident. I wish I had one. Less things you cand discuss when there is
    a barrel pointed at you. As in the hotdog wanted to know if he could
    sleep in the cellar. I said, only if I can put cement over your grave.

I awoke to a noise in the house one night.  I first thought it was my
daughter in the next room having a bad dream or something.  I walked into
her room and found her sound asleep.  I went back to bed trying to let go
of a wierd feeling.  I heard the noise again.  I pulled a .45 from my
closet and slipped the magazine into it and quietly let the slide chamber
the first round.  I walked around the house and found nothing.  I was about
to return to bed when I heard the noise again in my daughters room.  I went
into her room at the same time an arm came through the window and turned on
the light!  I released the safety and waited.  The arm pulled the curtain
back and looked at me.  He was VERY surprised and fled.  I called 911 and
the Police found him several blocks away.  He remembered me at the Police
station but the charges never stuck.  The DA got him on a number of other
accounts though.

Is the question do I feel like I'm the 'protector' in my house?  Yes.

patrick

    The problem with a confronting an intruder with a gun is that a) he/she
    knows that anyone he/she meets is expendable and can shoot first and
    identify the remains later.  b) You, on the other hand, have to worry that
    it isn't a drunken neighbor thinking he was locked out of his own
    house, or your college kid coming home from school unexpectedly, or
    your wife's favorite cat.  By the time you may have eliminated all the
    possibilities, you could be dead.  You also have to be careful not to
    shoot the intruder in the back, or you could go to jail (according to
    a lawyer friend who has sent people to jail for same).  I believe in
    calling the police, making noise, turning on lights, and laying low.
    99% of all intruders want no confrontation.  Protecting my family and 
    staying alive are my main concerns.  Getting the bastard is low on my 
    list of things to accomplish.  Insurance covers everything else.
    
    					- Vick

    I hear noises in my house all the time. I generally check them out.
    I generally do so unarmed unless there is something particularly
    suspicious. On the occasions I've been armed it's been with a shot
    gun. But they were all before I had a handgun. There is not phone in
    my bed room right now so using a phone means going into a room where
    the noise probably came from. This is not a permanent condition as
    I do plan of stringing a phone line into the bedroom one of these days.

    			Alfred

    The dog lets me know if the noises are anything to worry about.  She
    doesn't raise an eyebrow at the cats, kids or either one of us coming
    in, but will raise cain about strange people in the yard or house.  
    
    I won't go into my defense methods beyond that, however I do live in
    Colorado which has a strong home and family protection law.
    
    Have I had an intruder in a home?  Yes, about 19 years ago.  It is
    amazing what a cat launched into the face of someone will do to
    encourage them to leave.  (I was much more pacifistic in those days ;-) .)
    
    Meg

    A cat in the face pacifistic? And I thought Beeler was mean. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    My problem with the cat-as-weapon idea is that, of my three, the one
    most likely to do serious damage to whoever she was thrown at is the
    one least likely to be within reach if there were an intruder. (She's
    the most sensible one, and would simply render herself invisible. Which
    I'd do, too, if I could.) The one who _would_ be at hand would make a
    lousy missile; imagine hitting a burglar with a 16-pound marshmallow...
    
    Re the question: No (non-cat-caused) strange noises *in* the house, but
    there were a couple outside - a scream somewhere up the street, groans
    somewhere out back. Both times I called 911; both times, by the time
    the police arrived there was nothing to be seen/heard.
    
    I still haven't acquired a baseball bat, so if someone did break in
    (and I couldn't sneak out) I guess I'd have to cosh the miscreant with
    a big lead dragon...
    
    -b

    
    I have a poodle/scotty dog that came as a package deal with my wife.
    She (the dog) goes berserk any time a stranger comes to the door (after 
    10 years I'm still considered a stranger ;^) ).
    
    When my wife and I were going together someone tried to break in one
    night when I wasn't there--the dog earned her keep.  The dog hasn't bit
    anyone but my brother once (he was teasing her (the dog) and got what
    he deserved imho), but she'll sure make you think twice about standing
    your ground or running for cover. 
    
    fred();

    	So far I have always investigated the problem stark naked and
    carrying nothing. We have things like dish washers and water heaters
    on time clocks, and it has always been a malfunction in one of them
    that was causing the noise. If I had to carry something it would
    probably have to be a water glass or a paperback book.
    
    	This area has a high burglary rate, and I know several people who
    have been burgled, but I only know one person who has managed to see a
    burglar. She woke up to find him sorting through the jewelry on her
    dressing table. He apologised for disturbing her and walked out (but
    without emptying his pockets first).

    Never been in a situation where an intruder was breaking in...

    I did come home to find my apartment door kicked in once.  It
    was several years ago and what I did was, in hindsight, pretty
    stupid.  The apt. door was at the top of a narrow staircase.
    In addition, on the other side of the door was another staircase
    that led up into a two level, three bedroom apt. (in the north end
    of Boston) - with access to a balcony and neighboring roofs.  The
    perp could easily have still been in the apt. and had he tried to
    escape via the door, there's no way I could have gotten out of
    his way if he were armed (or bigger than me).  For some reason I
    just felt the apt. was empty and walked right in.  I immediately
    searched the place looking for missing items (not to see if the
    perp was still there...I think at this point I was assuming he
    had escaped via the balcony or thru a window onto the adjoining
    building).  I discovered a VCR had been stolen and I promptly
    called the police.    Considering this happened on me VERY FIRST
    DAY of living in the "big city" I took it rather well.  My room-
    mate and I concluded based on other evidence that the person who
    broke in was an ex-room-mate who was angry at having been taken
    to court over non-payment of rent and utilities.....

    Anyway, if I were awakened by strange noises and couldn't determine
    if they were made by the cats or someone coming in late, I'd grab
    a makeshift weapon of some sort and take a look.  If I saw a person
    moving around I'd immediately grab a phone and dial 911 and try to
    lay low.  If I saw an opportunity to...incapacitate the intruder, 
    I'd probably take it.  I'd behave in the same manner if I were with
    someone at the time of the intrusion (and if he were willing to he'd
    be more than welcome to help me defend the place if it seemed necessary
    to do so).

    I don't live in the city anymore so the idea of someone breaking in
    seems a remote possibility.  I'm sure it would be beneficial to be
    better prepared for such a situation but I'm sort of resigned to the
    idea that, if it ever happens I'll be punishing myself afterward for
    not having taken the threat more seriously.

    /Greg

    Let my dog finish his snack then let him outside he always has to go
    after a big meal. 8^)
    
    In reality I first hope that it was just the wind outside then I
    prepare myself to perform to the limit of Colorado's "make my day" law.
    
    -j 

    
    i'd assume that the rats grew a little since last summer..

    Just had to reply to this note.  I took a gun self-defense course
    several years ago.  I was instructed to get my gun, roll off the bed
    furthest away from the bedroom door.  I was taught to brace my arms on
    the bed and shout out a warning that I had a weapon, and that I would
    use it.  If the intruder steps in my bedroom door, I could shoot him at
    that time.  If this scenario plays out and I did end up shooting the
    intruder, at that time lay the gun down and call the police.  
    
    Would I be able to do this?  I honestly don't know.  I haven't
    practiced shooting in several years due to the fact that my gun was
    stolen.  Did me alot of good, huh?
    
    Karen

    
    I'd have my shotgun loaded, (5 shells), and my pistol in my belt, or
    shorts.  I'd hold the shotgun level, (terminator style), and start
    firing my 12 guage, dispersing the pattern in a blanket style in the
    direction of the noise.  When empty, I'd pass it to my wife, who would
    start reloading, while I'm emptying my revolver in the same fashion. 
    Then I change weapons with my wife, and repeat the process.
    

    I'd set off the tactical nuclear device I keep in the basement.

    re: .27.  I look forward to reading about the results in HOME_WORK.
    :-)
    
    re:.0  I'd consult my partner, then slam the bedroom door figuring it's
    gotta be a cat and if it isn't whoever it is has enough intelligence to
    get out the way he came in.  (is it PC to use a male pronoun in this
    case?)
    
    ed

    Sadly, we're not allowed to keep Guns in the UK. However, I do have
    quite an array of harmful objects at home - Gurkha Knife (I think the
    real name is 'Kukre") and a couple of Matchets.
    
    If someone was to break in (or if I thought someone was breaking in)
    I'd make a lot of noise - flush the toilet etc - and hope that whoever
    it was went away. 
    
    I probably wouldn't waken up though since I don't even notice my
    three-year old climbing into bed between my wife and myself.
    
    mark.

    re .30, "sadly" !!!???? you're not allowed to keep guns in the UK!  I
    wouldn't consider it sad.  I'd consider the sign of a superior
    civilization!
    
    re .29, yes, it is PC to use a male pronoun when talking about burglars
    and such, since women don't do things like that.  We're nicer.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I could sick my pet fish Eric on the boogie men! :-)

    Excellent question Bubba, and not one I havn't thought about.  Since
    I am a man I not only would want to respond to it but I suppose I
    would be expected to respond to it rather than my wife (or is that
    a form of descrimination against my wife?), (yes that has a cynical
    note to it).  
    
    Anyway, if seriously alarmed and I was reasonably confident that it may
    well BE an intruder rather than a cat I would first dial 911 on the
    bedroom phone.  If the line was dead due to cut phone line etc. I would
    dial 911 over my hand held HAM radio.  I would then get out the 357
    and proceed to listen.  If the person came up the stairs before the
    Police got there he/she would be stopped by the 357 at about the
    landing.  (I would challenge, identify the person before shooting,
    at least to make sure it wasn't an innocent person such as my son)
    (good idea huh?)  Probably better if I shoot first to keep the
    advantage but I really don't want to shoot someone unncessarily.
    
    I would not go down stairs to investigate if I was reasonably sure there
    was an intruder.  The intruder KNOWS whether he is willing to kill me
    if I confront him,  I am not sure if I am willing to kill under those
    conditions and that is a DISADVANTAGE.  Go down stairs with a
    flashlight and loaded gun calling 'whos there?"  WHAM!  I am blown
    away or knifed before I am even SURE there is an intruder there.  Nope,
    wait for the cops, upstairs.  But if the person comes upstairs thats
    another matter.  If they come up the stairs they had better watch out
    because I will be scared and unwilling to fool around with the
    sitution, I might shoot first and ask questions later.  
    
    If I woke up with a knife at my throat I would have to play along and
    cooperate and make the best of a bad situation.
    
    I think having thought this scenerio out beforehand and having a plan
    of action (or non action) is important.
    
    Jeff

    
    I sure hope that all of you who advocate shooting someone
    that comes in your home do not have children who stay out late,
    or a partner that works late, or house guests that have keys to
    your home
    
    I hope that most of your are kidding about shooting first
    and asking questions later...especially when those 'questions'
    could be to yourself sitting in jail
    
    As an NRA member I'd suggest that rifle/gun owners take a safety class
    and contact your local police to know the laws before you do venture
    to shoot at another person or yourself
    
    Karen, I'm glad your gun was stolen (-:
    
    christopher

    	Reading a large proportion of these notes just makes me glad that
    I live in the UK where firearms are not so readily available to Rambo
    et al...:-(

    RE .33
    
    I also have my 4+ watt CB walkie-talkie in the bedroom and the police are 
    only a mile away and they do monitor ch 9
    
    This is a good back up strategy for cut phone lines and it is battery
    powered.
    
    Steve

    I find the replies humorous to say the least. My house was robbed
    Dec-18-1991, just two weeks ago. If I had been in the house I would
    have shot, spindled, and mutilated them. The aftermath is incredible.
    My wife lost all of her heirloom jewlery along with the pieces I have
    given her over the years. The jewlery can't be replaced. The things of
    mine are replaceable so she feels that I am lucky while she has put herself
    in a very deep funk. This event has caused some severe problems to come
    out between us. 

    	Those of you that think defending your property is not civilized
    need this type of experience. The police cannot take over your
    responsibility, they can only help you help yourself.


    		Our "things" are gone and I know we will never see them
    again.


    			HAND
    			Wayne
    

    re .34  I am well aware of the seriousness of shooting someone..I have
    'agonized' over this question as to what I would do. The choice may
    well be would I rather be sitting in jail or have myself or a family
    member be dead or seriously injured... those are the potential stakes.
    
    Jeff

    .35
    
    But we do not have the IRA blowing up down town USA either.....:-)

    	No,you just help fund them!!!
    

    	Re .40....Apologies I didn't see the smileys on .39's reply:-(

>    I sure hope that all of you who advocate shooting someone
>    that comes in your home do not have children who stay out late,
>    or a partner that works late, or house guests that have keys to
>    your home

 Oh, I suppose that anyone who believes that people have a right to use
deadly force to thwart an attack are categorically unable to distinguish
between intruders and guests...

>    Karen, I'm glad your gun was stolen (-:

 I don't think that is funny or amusing in the least. It sounds like Karen
was trained in how to deal with intruders to me. Whether or not she is
really competant is not for you to decide; the fact remains that she availed
herself of her lawful rights of self-protection. You seem pleased that this
was taken away from her. For shame.

 The Doctah

    .41
    
    Apologies accepted! Of course! But I don't spend money on such
    foolishness as sending the IRA money. I just wear orange around March
    17th. :)

    	REP ALL
    		Try a security system they are not very expensive nad
    could save your and your loved ones life..
    
    And I sleep real good at night.ZZZZZZZZ

    Security systems can be just as tampered with as a loaded gun. Get Mr.
    Policeman tromping out to you home a few times cause the system has
    problems and Mr. Policeman is gonna re-read the 'Boy who Cried Wolf'
    tooo often....:)

    I hear the valid arguments against having a gun in the home.  The idea
    for a security system was the best alternative I have seen in this
    string.  Good idea! I am going to think of it as an alternative to
    firearms.
    
    Lets not kid oursleves... robbers willing to break into a house during
    the night and confront the people in the house are DANGEROUS people or 
    they wouldn't BE there.  Yes, using a gun to defend oneself and family
    at night is serious business.  So is that robber being in your house
    at night with sleeping people in it serious business.  
    
    For the reader in the U.K. who feels safer because of the gun laws
    there:  I am not worried about the armed homeowner defending his home
    and family at night because I am not going to BE there breaking into
    his home giving him reason to shoot at me.  I am worried about the
    loose cannon criminals on the streets who have guns... and those 
    ones willing to come into my house at night. 
    
    I would use any reasonable alternative to shooting someone. The only
    condition under which I can conceive of using a gun is when myself or
    a loved one is under IMMEDIATE danger of serious harm and my
    alternatives have been exhausted (the cops havn't shown up, the lights
    on didn't scare him away).  Even under those conditions I don't know if
    I would pull the trigger.
    
    Jeff 

    re .43
    
    That wasn't amusing.
    
    	Alice T.

    <That wasn't amusing>
    
    Gee, i thought it was. (although George _may_ have gotten his colours
    (sp in the interest of internationalism) mixed up. Aren't the Orangemen
    _against_ the IRA?
    
    				herb

    rep -1
    
    	Not often..
    
       I have had my system for 4 years and never had a false alarm due to
    system malfunctions..
    
    	Yea the phone line can be cut and disconnected from the monitoring
    service but most of your typical burgs dont know this. They do have
    systems that monitor the phone line and when it goes dead the panel
    will alarm you with an signal and the siren will blsat if you do not
    aknowledge it with a code. And if you have money to burn there is a
    system that comucates with the monitoring service by radio wave. But the
    real advantage is the sound of the siren this is something very hard to
    temper with and disconnect. last but not lest is the battary backup
    that will last for days(4-5) with the system armed.
    
    	And if someone wants to get in your house and do you harm (you and your
    gun wont stop him). But the sound of a security system might prevent it or
    at the very least give you an advantage to detect his/her presence. 

    Both sides simply continue the antagonism.
    
    Anyone who wears orange on that day is simply provoking, not
    supporting.
    
    	Alice T.

    Eye, but Alice me las, we Irish love a good fight. We does. And ya must
    attend a good Irish Wedding someday. Don't forget your boxing gloves.
    :^)
    
    All in Good Humor!
    George

    re .49


    		About 18 years ago I sold alarm systems. I see you bought
    the sales pitch. The truth is alarm systems only help protect you
    against kids. Any professional burglar could defeat your system. It
    really is not that difficult. On the positive side 95% of all burglaries
    are committed by kids ( got this from the police officer investigating
    my robbery ) so your alarm system eliminates them.


    			HAND
    			Wayne

    re .52
    
    	Not without making some noise and then I got you where I want ya..

    Shoot first ask questions later huh ?
    
    You guys----
    
    Anyway, I don't own any handguns and my only firearms are a shotgun
    and a few 22s that are tucked away in my basement.  There is no live
    amo in the house.  Apart from that, I have two dogs, a 35 pound
    terrier who's defense would be to pee on the floor, giving the
    old 'oil slick' surprise for the intruder. and a Siberian Husky,
    who, when fully grown will probably tip toe around at about 65/70
    pounds. 
    
    Clearly, the early warning from the dogs is what I would need,
    and what would probably deter any prowlers.
    
    I remember once, when our terrier was just brought home from
    the animal shelter, he woke me around 2:30 a.m. one night,
    with this gawd awful growl, and then charged out of the bedroom.
    
    Me thinking something was up, charged right out with him,,,
    
    seconds later, I'm in the kitchen, in my skivvies, not one thing in 
    my hands with which to defend myslef, (cpet my fists) standing a puddle 
    of yellow stuff...  my heart was pounding nearly out of my chest, 
    talk about leaping then looking !
    
    had I  a gun, I'm sure I'd have shot the kitchen door dead, right
    on the spot
    
    
    

    
    
      A couple of months ago a couple in my neighborhood were gaged,tied up 
    and robbed at gun point. This was at early evening in the suburbs. Its 
    hitting closer to home these days. This is no longer a big city
    problem. Its time we law obeying, tax paying, hard working citizens
    start fighting back to these scum bags. SEND THEM A MESSAGE.. The
    courts let them out, the cops can't keep up and the drug lords keep
    bringing in what they want. If more of them were being blown away in
    the act, othere's might think twice... Remember an eye for an eye...
    
    /gc

    re the IRA - I've heard that more people are killed by handguns in NYC
    alone, during a year's time, than are killed by the IRA, in the same
    timeframe.  So, although, I certainly don't support the IRA, it's still
    sounds like it might be safer to wander the streets of Belfast than
    some US cities.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .57, I *am* a Yank, and I don't tote a gun!  :-)
    
    Do you think I'm noting from the UK or something?  I wish!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Excuse me. Agian I assumed. Next time I will ask. I will delete that
    last note. 

>    re the IRA - I've heard that more people are killed by handguns in NYC
>    alone, during a year's time, than are killed by the IRA, in the same
>    timeframe.

 Kinda funny, when you consider that private handgun ownership is outlawed 
in NYC unless you are a celebrity or obscenely rich.

    re .60, is it really?  Like I said, I'm repeating what someone told me
    - actually what someone told me when I said that I'd be afraid to go to
    Belfast - maybe they just said murdered in NYC, and not handguns. 
    Anyway, they said something to indicate that despite the IRA it is
    statistically more dangerous to live in NYC than in Belfast.
    
    Lorna
    

 Oh, I don't dispute that it's handguns. I'm just making a general
comment on the efficacy of our much vaunted and highly useless gun
control laws. even more amusing is the fact that the murder capital
of our country (Washington DC) also bans private handgun ownership.
But I'm sure that's merely a coincidence...

    re.34
    The laws in Colorado are quite clear if the intruder is inside your
    home you have every legal right to blow them to smithereens and ask
    questions later. It has been upheld many times since being passed.
    
    Why do you think the intruder deserves anything less? Do you think the
    intruder would ask you questions like "are you going to hurt me" before
    taking your life? I doubt it as he has already displayed little regard
    for you or your property just by being in your home uninvited.
    
    I have been told personaly by police officers that if you shoot, shoot
    to kill otherwise the SOB might just turnaround and try to sue you.
    I know a DEC employee whose home was broken into by a man high on
    PCP he shot him several times but diden't kill him the man sueed and
    won! Talk about a screwed-up legal system!
    
    -j
    

    re.45
    My neighbor had several false alarms before switching his system off
    for good the last false alarm nearly got him arrested and did get him
    a $300 fine. 
    
    -j
    

    re .34
    
    >Karen, I'm glad your gun was stolen (-:
         Why, so some criminal can use it instead of law-abiding citizen?
    
    Karen

    re-.1
    Great comeback!
    
    
    -j
    

    re -.1
    
    Thank you.
    
    Karen

    	The news for January 1st. claimed that 93 people had been killed
    last year in sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. That includes both
    guns and bombs, and probably anything else. Does anyone know a figure
    for NYC?  It should probably be adjusted for size of population -
    N.Ireland has about 6 million.
    
    	Let me describe how the local professional burglars operate. The
    first stage is when a friend in an insurance company provides them with
    a photocopy of an interesting-looking policy.
    
    	This gives them a name, address, list and description of
    particularly valuable items along with their estimated value.
    
    	The next stage is to look for customers for these items to make up
    a shopping list for your house. This enables them to plan the transport
    required. At the same time, if the name and address information is
    sufficient for them to obtain your telephone number you will probably
    get a few phone calls trying to sell you kitchen equipment, or asking
    your opinion of a political party. This is to get a rough idea of when
    you are likely to be at home.
    
    	The next step might be a visit from someone trying to convert you
    to some random religion. His main job is to identify any burglar alarm.
    If you are not there he might even take the risk of setting it off, but
    he will not attempt to steal anything and he will have a clean criminal
    record. If you are at home he will attempt to get invited in, and will
    not only look for burglar alarms but will also note the location of
    items on the shopping list if possible.
    
    	The actual burglary be planned for weeks or even months later. It
    will almost certainly be when the house is empty, and probably during
    the day. They use information from travel agents if possible. It will
    be very quick and probably rather noisy since they are only really
    interested in getting the items on their shopping list. They would be
    most unlikely to carry any weapons - if they did then they would only
    use them in self-defence, but there would be several of them since
    speed is of the essence to move out all the shopping list before any
    alarm is acted on. Even if they made a mistake, and someone was at
    home, there would be no violence unless you tried to prevent them
    leaving quickly.

RE:  Note 711.34  OLDTMR::RACZKA 

>    I sure hope that all of you who advocate shooting someone
>    that comes in your home do not have children who stay out late,
>    or a partner that works late, or house guests that have keys to
>    your home

Hey, most people exercise good judgement, but anyone can f**k up.  Even cops.
Cops have shot people by accident, thinking the civilian had a weapon when they
didn't.... or sometimes they have killed someone by accidently pulling the
trigger.  What do we do?  Take guns away from cops?  Slimeballs already have
more fire power than the cops do.
    
>    I hope that most of your are kidding about shooting first
>    and asking questions later...especially when those 'questions'
>    could be to yourself sitting in jail
    
As Jerry said, in Colorado we have the "Make My Day" law.  Anyone in my house
is "fair game."  Want to come over for dinner???  Hoho.

Heck, I've already had to patch my door and the sheetrock twice since they
passed that law... Hoho.

    re .64
    	Your neighbor probably had a system .52 sold 18 years ago...

    .70 
    
    My friend got rid of his system this past year. Got a gun. Shots
    streight. No false alarms, no drain on elect, no forgetting to turn it
    on or off, no kids playing with it either.

    
    Although I'd take every possible precaution to prevent either, somehow
    I'd rather have my kids playing with an alarm system than a gun...
    

    Everyone has their own opinion on alarm systems.  Mine?  An alarm
    system does two things (1) says that there's something worth stealing
    in there and (2) only slows down the potential intruder.

    A Lubbock, Texas police officer told me that one of the best deterrents
    was the "Neighborhood Watch" signs.

    Bubba

    Guns are as good as the bonehead behind them. Just like the
    keyboards.:) Gotta understand that some prince of a fellow who goes out
    to buy a gun isn't listing to one side because his gun is to big for
    his brains. But, it seems that that is the conclusion drawn from
    reading some of these replys. 

    I was sleeping alone in a house in the country.  Suddenly awoke, with a
    vague sense of having heard a loud noise.  I jumps into the closet,
    taking the phone with me.  In my foggy state, I thinks I'll call the
    cops if I hear footsteps.  Waiting - waiting - no footsteps - no noise
    at all.  If the oilburner blew, I'd smell it.  Nothing.
    
    Finally venture out of the closet, go back to sleep, and figure I had a
    real weird dream.
    
    Next day I find out -
    
         there was a minor earthquake.
    
    Glad I didn't shoot -;)
    
    Laura

    .75 Perhaps the family pet, dog or cat, passed alittle personal body
    gas? :)

    
    best deterrent is a dec wreck in the drive and leaving the drapes
    open..
    

    re:  basenote:
    
    I deliberately spent a great deal of effort determining what my
    course of action would be - before I bought a gun.
    
    The short summary is:  an intruder is just that, an intruder.  Their
    intentions can not be to my, or my family's, benefit.  Otherwise the
    intruder would have announced themselves.
    
    I will reach for the Berreta, have the wife call 911, slide the chamber
    very loudly and turn on the downstairs lights.  If the intruder decides
    to test my determination to protect my family he/she will regret it for
    the very short remainder of their life.
    
    Tom

    Here's something I taught my wife to do if an intruder should enter the
    house and I am not there.

    	1. Load the 12 gauge and call 911
    	2. get the kids and go into the bathroom
    	3  close the door and sit on the floor or in the bath tub
    	4. Let the intruder know you have a gun
    	5. cock that puppy ( it's a pump ) he'll know the sound

    There is only one way into the bathroom and her chances of survival are
    far better there than anywhere else in the house.
    
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    .77
    How about a home made wire guided missle. And you have demonstated it
    in the neighborhood once. :-) Sit on you front or back porch, launch
    it, and chace the local hounds in neighborhood. :-)

	
	I had someone almost break in when I was working the midnight to
	8 shift and the house looked unoccupied. The vibrations of the
	burglar's footsteps on the cellar roof woke me up and I located
	the source in the person of someone who had slit the bathroom 
	screen, cut out a pane of glass and opened the window. He was half
	way in, one leg over the sill, when I said "What the F*CK are you
	doing ?" He yanked his leg out taking part of the window and leaving
	part of his leg. I watched him jog down the driveway and into a waiting
	car. The police in Jamaica Plain said it happens a few times a week and
	didn't even take any descriptions. I considered the purchase of a gun
	for a couple weeks because I couldn't get over what might have happened
	if he had gotten in before I woke up but I let it drop. 

	About a year later, I was working 
	the same shift doing plumbing repair in office towers in downtown
	Boston. I was carrying a new toilet into a ladies room in a darkened 
	tenant space at about 4 am. When I kicked the inner door open with my
	foot, a woman who had just stepped out of the shower was waiting with
	handgun drawn. She didn't have her clothes but she did have her purse
	and her gun and she was really terrified and shaking uncontrollably.
	Carrying the toilet probably gave me the benefit of the doubt. She let 
	me put it down and back out slowly. The security guard, whom she knew 
	well, calmed her down. It turned out that'd she'd been out in town and 
	had way too much to drink and realized she couldn't drive home so she 
	crashed on the couch in her office. In the middle of the night, she got 
	sick and took a shower. Right about then, I showed up. Management came
	down pretty hard on me. I was supposed to check the lobby desk to make
	sure no one was in the space before entering but I'd gotten out of the
	habit. The guards let us know if so and so brought a prostitute back to 
	his office at night and was 'occupied' otherwise we just looked for 
	lights.

	I've had a bad feeling about guns and the possibility that someone
	innocent could get killed ever since. Especially me even though
    	it's been about 8 years since.
                                      

    

    re.70
    I seriously doubt it it was a system manufactured and installed by
    the largest name in burgler alarms in the state of Colorado and very
    state of the art. The bottom line is that you need to protect yourself
    and an alarm isen't going to do it. 
    
    -j

    re: .72
    
    > Although I'd take every possible precaution to prevent either, somehow
    > I'd rather have my kids playing with an alarm system than a gun...
    
    Our children don't "play" with the family firearms.  They've been
    raised to know that they are serious tools for serious business.
    Also, the older ones have been trained to be competent in their use.
    
    re: .5
    Depending on who she marries, the armed response duties may well 
    fall to our daughter in her (future) family.  She's VERY competent -
    pity the perp. who makes the mistake of thinking it's safe to intrude
    with "only" her to deal with.
    
    gen:
    It's all well and good to sing the praises of a more "civilized" 
    society, where we don't respond to violence in kind.  The trouble
    is: acting that way pretty much guarentees that the vicious always 
    get their way, and the good-guys always loose.  Things won't stay 
    "civilized" very long under such conditions.
    
    I don't necessarily agree with the "shoot first" advocates - partly 
    because the legal expenses can be prohibitive.  Nevertheless, i 
    tend to investigate suspicious noises with (loaded) pistol in hand.
    Our survival strategy is (a) determine if someone is inside or 
    attempting forced entry (b) call 911 (c) establish a field of fire 
    that will allow an intruder to retreat without engaging (d) make 
    noise, turn on lights, etc. to warn to perp. that someone is alert 
    to hir presence.  If the latter fails to defuse the situation, then 
    someone is likely to get hurt - don't bet it will be one of us.
    
    [dale]

RE Note 711.81              AIMHI::RAUH "Home of The Cruel Spa"         
    
>    How about a home made wire guided missle. And you have demonstated it
>    in the neighborhood once. :-) Sit on you front or back porch, launch
>    it, and chace the local hounds in neighborhood. :-)
    
    Actually this made me think. Maybe the fact that I have an Army deuce
    and a half parked in the driveway complete with numbers, OD paint,
    stars and canvas gives potential villians the wrong (right) idea.
    
    Wait till I get my 57mm cannon...
    
    Steve

    .85
    
    Walk around the neighborhood doing it up in camo pants, stripped to the
    waist, wearing a ribbon of bullets around your neck and chest. Paint
    mottos over the garage door:
    
    	"Mess with the best, Die like the rest."
    
    			or
    	"When the tuff get going, the weak get f*cked"
    
    Dress up all the kids in Gardian Angle garb for school. Fun thoughts!
    :-)
    
    Geo

    RE: .86
    
    "Kill 'em all ... let God sort it out"
    
    

    I am have started digging fox holes on my front lawn. Even working on
    that first strike shelter.... Just in case! :) Commies? Where?!?
    Survalist? Who? Me??? Naw!! :)

    re .88, commies?  Have you been watching the news?  Guess you'll have
    to find another bogie-man now.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Yep! Whatching the news. The little suckers are re-grouping! Lepors
    seldom change their spots! :-) Was that really an earth quake that you
    heard the other day? OR..... Was it them Reds tunneling under your
    house? :-)

>The little suckers are re-grouping! 

 Really! Little suckers are great lake trout bait. :-)

    I heard "a" presidential candidate this morning refer to an "85 year
    old chain smoking communist" so there's still a couple of commies in
    the world.
    
    ed

    As a former news paper owner, William Lobe once called Mass., "The
    Commie Welth of Mass." Guess there is more than a couple of them around.
    :-) 

    Some of you joke about this issue ('tactical nuclear device inthe
    basement') (wire guided missiles) etc.  For me, the concept of an
    intruder in my house in the middle of the night is a slight but
    very real threat.  I suppose many of the burglers prefer to avoid a
    conflict.  I read that a person who intrudes into a house in the
    middle of the night when the risk of people being in the house is 
    much higher than during the day has a more dangerous personality than
    the day time burgler who attempts to avoid a confrontation.  
    
    All I can say is that a burgler in my house at night is going to be
    at risk in this Country.  I don't know what the percentage of homes
    in N.H. with firearms is but certainly the risk of running into an
    armed homeowner is no small threat.  I dare say that threat must act
    as some deterrent to a would be burgler.  Opinions?
    
    

    I heard yesterday from a friend who had an intruder problem - almost.  
    She lives in a basement condo in Brighton (Mass) and was sleeping when 
    someone opened her bedroom window and started climbing in.  The noise woke 
    her up.  She leapt out of bed and grabbed the plunger that was in the room 
    (she had bought it as a gag present for a friend) and shouted and 
    brandished it at him.  He was out the window and off like a shot!
    
    It's pretty funny to visualize a woman in a nightie shaking a plunger at 
    an intruder, but it's also kind of scary when you think about what
    could have happened had he been armed or not easily scared off.
    
    I guess my opinion on the whole subject is that although you can make 
    plans, you can't always be 100% sure *what* you'll do when it actually 
    happens to you.
    
    **Debra

    The best weapon against an intruder is a hatchet. It's nearly
    impossible to stop once it's in motion, a near miss is often painful to
    the whackee, and doesn't have to be reloaded. If someone has not fully
    entered the home, a hatchet has the ability to create a fearsome shadow
    that usually convinces the intruder to retreat. No license is required.
    
    Ken

>The best weapon against an intruder is a hatchet.

 Nah, it's a keyboard.

 Del/ent=intruder and that's that. :-)

My friends Mr Smith and Mr Wesson wouldn't be of much help.  The one
sells cough drops, and the other makes cooking oil.  :-)

The hatchet sounds like a good idea, actually, except that I really
don't like the idea of allowing an intruder that close to my person -
in order to strike effectively with a hatchet, you have to be within
arm's length.  A machete would serve much the same purpose, and it's
a lot more damaging to the recipient.  You can strike effectively with
a machete from about two feet farther away.  Machetes are not uncommon
in the homes of serious gardeners who have to contend with blackberry
canes...

-dick

    ALMOST anyone who's ever seen a "Johnny Carson Anniversary Show"
    would be quick to leave, knowing that the occupant was throwing
    hatchets.
    
    ed

    A machete or hatchet is nice, but, only a damned fool would bring a
    blade to a gun fight ...

    Bubba

    Right Bubba, and the intruder KNOWS (theoretically) what he intends to
    do if confronted with an irate homeowner... that (I would think) gives
    him the edge.... he is fully awake and supposedly has thought what if
    through.  The homeowner is half asleep, not sure if its an intruder
    or cat, or son, or whatever and is probably trying to avoid killing
    hurting someone unless he knows exactly what the situation is.  The
    intruder knows whether he intends to kill if confronted.  That
    hesitation on the homeowners part can be fatal.. expecially if the 
    homeowner has hatchet and the intruder has a gun.
    
    Jeff

>    re .30, "sadly" !!!???? you're not allowed to keep guns in the UK!  I
>   wouldn't consider it sad.  I'd consider the sign of a superior
>   civilization!

>   	Reading a large proportion of these notes just makes me glad that
>   I live in the UK where firearms are not so readily available to Rambo
>   et al...:-(

What civilized society would deny its citizens access to the most-effective
form of self-protection? 


>    re the IRA - I've heard that more people are killed by handguns in NYC
>    alone, during a year's time, than are killed by the IRA, in the same
>    timeframe.  So, although, I certainly don't support the IRA, it's still
>    sounds like it might be safer to wander the streets of Belfast than
>    some US cities.

You mean killed by PEOPLE with handguns, right?

                               ------------

    Look, every year, between 500,000 and 600,000 people defend their own
    lives and those of their loved ones with handguns, that's JUST handguns
    (Professor Gary Kleck, PhD. Criminology, Florida State University). 
    Yes, there are a few innocent unfortunates gunned down by criminals
    each year, but IN THE BALANCE, as with planes, trains, and automobiles,
    the benefits provided to society by the availability of firearms to
    honest folks far outweigh the drawbacks.  Usually merely the display of
    the firearm by the intended victim is sufficient to put an end to the
    threat.  Isn't it funny how so many people conveniently forget these
    crucial facts when the usefulness of firearms in preserving innocent
    human life is being discussed... 

    By the way, for the benefit of the baseball-bat/machete/hatchet/
    hurled-feline crowd, better hope your first swing hits home.  You may
    not live to deliver another.  You are speaking of hand-to-hand combat
    with possibly more than one intruder, possibly drugged and therefore
    highly tolerant to pain, without question schooled in street fighting
    and possibly recently released from prison (where they don't spend time
    baking brownies and trading baseball cards but where they DO spend time
    practicing lockpicking, weight lifting, unarmed combat, and other such
    inncocent pastimes).  Furthermore, these people do not operate
    psychologically on the same moral foundation as we; they make no
    distinction between right and wrong.  Just this difference in attitude
    alone between an intruder and potential unarmed victim tips the balance
    of power precariously in the direction of the former. 

    You who never have fought with a true criminal, someone who literally
    radiates  contempt and hate combined with raw physical power, have no
    idea at all what you'll be up against physically and psychologically
    when it happens.  Not the faintest idea.

    - craig

                             

Re: << Note 711.16 by R2ME2::BENNISON "Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56" >>>

>>    The problem with a confronting an intruder with a gun is that a) he/she
>>    knows that anyone he/she meets is expendable and can shoot first and
>>    identify the remains later.  b) You, on the other hand, have to worry that
>>    it isn't a drunken neighbor thinking he was locked out of his own
>>    house, or your college kid coming home from school unexpectedly, or
>>    your wife's favorite cat.  By the time you may have eliminated all the
>>    possibilities, you could be dead.

From your description above either 1) The criminal won't make a decision, he'll
just shoot or 2) He'll figure out if you have a gun, and if you do, he'll
shoot.

It seems that in case 1 you might as well have a gun if you're going to be shot
at and in case 2, he's going to be tied up in the decision-making process as
much as you.  The nice thing is (especially if it's dark) you have home-court
advantage.

>>                                        You also have to be careful not to
>>    shoot the intruder in the back, or you could go to jail (according to
>>    a lawyer friend who has sent people to jail for same).

Depends on where you are or what conditions that surround the shooting.  This is
typically true for retreating criminal outside your house.  Inside is a
different matter.

>>                                                            I believe in
>>    calling the police, making noise, turning on lights, and laying low.
>>    99% of all intruders want no confrontation.  Protecting my family and 
>>    staying alive are my main concerns.

I agree.  The only two differences in my case is laying low with a .45 and
releasing three Bouviers de Flanders that weigh between 65 and 120 pounds each.

>>                                         Getting the bastard is low on my 
>>    list of things to accomplish.

Getting the bastard isn't even on my list.  If they insist on hanging around and
coming upstairs, *stopping* the bastard is the only thing on my list.  "Getting"
is revenge.  "Stopping" is protection.  It's more than a fine destinction.

                                    Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.35 by NMSUV2::NAM >>>

>>    	Reading a large proportion of these notes just makes me glad that
>>    I live in the UK where firearms are not so readily available to Rambo
>>    et al...:-(

What do you fear?  No one has talked about walking down the street firing
randomly into houses, they've only talked about the possibility of shooting
intruders that break into their house.

The only person who should fear armed law-abiding citizens are the criminals.

                            Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.63 by CSC32::GORTMAKER "Whatsa Gort?" >>>

>>    The laws in Colorado are quite clear if the intruder is inside your
>>    home you have every legal right to blow them to smithereens and ask
>>    questions later. It has been upheld many times since being passed.

I'd like to clarify exactly what the "Homeowner Protection Act" (AKA the "Make
my Day" law) is about here in Colorado.  I misunderstood it before I had a
chance to hear Dave Koppel (he has a new collumn in the American Rifleman for
all you NRA members) speak at the Colorado State Shooting Association meeting
a few months ago...

The HPA affects CIVIL law only, it protects the homeowner from begin sued if
they shoot an intruder in defense of their home.  Period.  It does not protect
the homeowner from being brought up on charges, though it does have that side
effect.

The HPA requires three conditions to be met in order to be applicable:

	1) The criminal must have entered the house uninvited.
	2) The criminal must have commited, is in the midst of comitting, or
	   it is reasonable to assume that they will commit another crime.
	3) The criminal has used, is in the midst of using, or it is reasonable
	   to assume that they will will use force against the homeowner (note:
	   this is *any* amount of force, from nerf bat to firearm).

If all three conditions are met, you cannot be sued either by the criminal or
the surviving family if you use deadly force.

Examples:

	Some punk kicks down your door (condition 1), sits down with you in
	front of the TV and takes your popcorn (condition 2) and does nothing
	else.  Condition 3 is not met, and if you shoot him, you can be sued.
	Now, if, when he runs out of popcorn, he threatens to hit you with the
	empty popcorn cup, you can shoot.  You'll probably be charged with
	manslaughter, since the threat wasn't very much, but neither he, nor his
	surviving relatives can sue you.

	Some punk asks to use the phone and you let him in.  He comes in, sits
	down with you in front of the TV and takes your popcorn (condition 2)
	and threatens to stab you if change the channel (condition 3).  If,
	while the knife is pointed at you, you shoot him you probably won't
	be brought up on charges, but you can be sued by him or his surviving
	family because you invited him in.

Rather odd examples, but they get the point across.

                          Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.96 by SALEM::KUPTON "Pasta Masta" >>>

>>    The best weapon against an intruder is a hatchet. It's nearly
>>    impossible to stop once it's in motion, a near miss is often painful to
>>    the whackee, and doesn't have to be reloaded. If someone has not fully
>>    entered the home, a hatchet has the ability to create a fearsome shadow
>>    that usually convinces the intruder to retreat. No license is required.

I like that -- "nearly impossible to stop once it's in motion" of course, since
momentum is symmetric, you could just as correctly say "nearly impossible to
start it moving if it's stopped."  That, along with requirement that you close
with a possibly street-fighting-wise attacker makes it a poor substitute for a
firearm.

                                    Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.82 by PENUTS::RHAYES "Raymond F. Hayes, Jr. DTN 275-3628" >>>

>>	About a year later, I was working 
>>	the same shift doing plumbing repair in office towers in downtown
>>	Boston. I was carrying a new toilet into a ladies room in a darkened 
>>	tenant space at about 4 am. When I kicked the inner door open with my
>>	foot, a woman who had just stepped out of the shower was waiting with
>>	handgun drawn. She didn't have her clothes but she did have her purse
>>	and her gun and she was really terrified and shaking uncontrollably.
>>	Carrying the toilet probably gave me the benefit of the doubt. She let 
>>	me put it down and back out slowly. The security guard, whom she knew 
>>	well, calmed her down. It turned out that'd she'd been out in town and 
>>	had way too much to drink and realized she couldn't drive home so she 
>>	crashed on the couch in her office. In the middle of the night, she got 
>>	sick and took a shower. Right about then, I showed up. Management came
>>	down pretty hard on me. I was supposed to check the lobby desk to make
>>	sure no one was in the space before entering but I'd gotten out of the
>>	habit. The guards let us know if so and so brought a prostitute back to 
>>	his office at night and was 'occupied' otherwise we just looked for 
>>	lights.

>>	I've had a bad feeling about guns and the possibility that someone
>>	innocent could get killed ever since. Especially me even though
>>    	it's been about 8 years since.

I can understand the emotional reaction, but let's look at the logical side.
This was a great setup for an accident.  But despite a nude, drunk, sick,
terrified woman with a handgun, nothing happened.  She did everything right.
She thought she was threatened, and prepared herself.  She determined if the
threat was real, and when she decided that the perceived threat could be removed
without firing a shot, she didn't shoot.

An excellent example for those that think that when someone buys a gun they're
willing to shoot at shadows.

Just for an FYI, according to the National Center for Health Staistics, 1988
numbers (latest I have available), there were 1,452 accidental deaths caused by
firearms.  Kleck (University of Floriday) estimated between 650,000 and
1,000,000 defensive uses of firearms (all types) per year.

                                    Roak

    
	The first line of defense in my house is the locked doors, the 
       second is the skitso dog. He can determine family or fow. Should
       the noise persist and the dog go silent. I would have the wife 
       grab the baby and head for the walk-in closet. She would have 
       her choice of gun from there. I give the first warning "who's there"
       Click/click (cycle pump 12 ga.), click/snap (cycle 9mm.) wife has 
       called 911. The house is dark and I know it better than any one,
       this is used to my advantage. Stay low, identify, stop. STOP is the
       very critical word here. If it should come before a judge, it sounds
       a lot better. Do not use deadly force until all alternatives have
       been exhausted, and when it comes to that shoot to stop. A 12 gage in
       the chest cavity loaded with bird shot will be the least damaging
       to the house and risk to the neighbors. Make sure that the situation 
       is a thought controlled one. If the perp does not identify them self 
       and starts up the stairs they are ground beef. I might sound like I
       am an aggressor but If you knew me, you would say "he was a quiet man"
       with a awareness of how bad things can be. I do not live in the city
       or in a crime ridden area. This use to be considered a nice area.

         Yes, my house was broken into twice.         Hudson Ma.
         I had friends raped, both female and male.   Hudson Ma.
         A co-worker found his family slaughtered.    Northboro Ma.
                                              
                                                JRI

    
    >711.106 by PEAKS::OAKEY
    
    I've never looked at the experience in quite that way. Thank you for
    the alternate perspective. It's always good to get nudged into seeing
    the other side now and then.
    
    Ray                         
    
    

Re: <<< Note 711.110 by PENUTS::RHAYES "Raymond F. Hayes, Jr. DTN 275-3628" >>>
    
>>    I've never looked at the experience in quite that way. Thank you for
>>    the alternate perspective. It's always good to get nudged into seeing
>>    the other side now and then.

For the record, if I had been in your shoes, I would had to have changed my
shorts...

                              Roak

    	One thing to remember is that intruders are usually in a house to
    steal something. If he/she makes noise in the living room, they've
    already gotten past the first line of defense....locks, the dog....
    
    	If you are on the second floor you have the advantage...he has to
    come to you. 
    
    	The one thing that people do in these situations is try to be as
    quiet as mice. The thing to do is get and scream "ALICE....give me the 
    f,:.")ng .357!!!" Turn on the lights and stomp around....have the wife
    call the police and scream that there's an intruder!!! If the intruder
    is downstairs....he run like hell! if he's in the livingroom and on the
    same floor, he'll run like hell!
    
    	Just remember that killing someone is not easy the first time
    around. If you've never done t....it's not easy if you have to make a
    bunch of decisions.....if you react to save your life, it's a bit
    easier.
    
    Ken

    After reading alot of this;  I wish life was such a wonderful bowl
    of so sweet smelling roses.  Well, life has some real serious pit
    falls, and one of the more nastier ones are criminals.  
    
    First off;  Lets ASSUME that there is an element of lower life form
    that has entered your house(regardless of time) without your consent.
    
       A)  This person really could care less what happens to anybody other
           than itself.
    
       B)  Especially **YOU** the home owner!!!
    
       C)  Since this person has no VALUE FOR YOU or YOUR belongings,
           What warrants any consideration of VALUE for said low life?
    
     What I am getting it, is that regardless of the situation;  If a 
    criminal enters a dwelling with prior consent(especially 0200 AM)
    this persons only concern to get what they can, and if they have
    to hurt or kill .. SO BE IT...
    
    Anyway, to answer the main question, and in the order of which things
    would happen:
      
    1) Dial 911
    
      1a) Request police
      2a) Request morgue
    
    2) LOCK AND LOAD...It is a 12 guage/pump...Very distinct and audible
       noise. Also MUCH more effective for up close confrontations.
    
    3) If said person chooses to remain on premises, Find them and take 
       them out..  Reason: prevent somebody else from potential harm.
                           saves tax dollars..Courts/fees/lawyers..Jail
                           time.
    
    Yea, sound a little callouse;  But, before you cast judgement WALK
    in my shoes...
    
    Karen;  I am real sorry that your weapon was stolen,  I'd rather see
    it in your hands than that of thief.  
    
    1 small addendum:  I do have SEVERAL S&W's for sale.
    
    Jeff
    
    4) 

    What's the penalty for killing someone who breaks into your house? 
    What if they're armed?  Unarmed?  What if they're only injurred and
    sue you?  What would the courts do?
    
    Just asking.
    
    Kris

Re: <<< Note 711.114 by BRADOR::HATASHITA "Hard Wear Engineer" >>>

>>    What's the penalty for killing someone who breaks into your house? 
>>    What if they're armed?  Unarmed?  What if they're only injurred and
>>    sue you?  What would the courts do?

Depends where you live and specifics of the breakin.  In Colorado, we make the
criminal play "you bet your life" rather than the homeowner.  If someone breaks
into your house, in most cases you can shoot them.  Period.  Doesn't matter
if they have a gun or not.  To require the homeowner to determine if the
hot prowler (term used for people that break into occupied dwellings) is armed
or not before shooting usually requires the homeowner to wait until the prowler
shoots first.  Colorado is progressive enough to realize that it should be the
criminal that should be worried of being shot without warning, not the
homeowner.

As for being injured and being sued, back up a few notes and there's an entry
about the Colorado Homeowner's Protection Act that describes that situation.

                              Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.113 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>>
    
>>    2) LOCK AND LOAD...It is a 12 guage/pump...Very distinct and audible
>>       noise. Also MUCH more effective for up close confrontations.

Depends.  If you're going to hole up in the bedroom, dial 911 and wait, you
can't beat a shotgun.  If you're going to check out the noise in the living
room, and you're up against a gun-savvy individual, there's a good chance
you're going to get killed.

When you round a corner with a shotgun, the muzzle goes first.  All someone has
to do is grab it, defelct it (they'll have a great mechanical advantage) and
then stab/shoot/hatchet you while you pump a round harmlessly into the ceiling.

Read Massad Ayoob for more information.

For housecleaning (read: kids, don't try this at home) a handgun works best
because of its menuverability.

                           Roak

    Rep. -1
    
    I kinda have to agree/disagree...Agree w/ most using a hand gun.
    
    Disagree, Shotgun..IE: "snake charmer" not much of a barrel( is Leagle)
    and a little training in said close situations;  Plus the benefit of
    playing in "my backyard".  I have no fears..  Just Pity..
    
    But that is my humble opinion.
    
    Jeff

Re: <<< Note 711.117 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>>
    
>>    Disagree, Shotgun..IE: "snake charmer" not much of a barrel( is Leagle)
>>    and a little training in said close situations.

Pistol grip?  If so for $5 you can make it shorter than 18" and *still* be
perfectly legal.
                      Roak

    Tried that...But GEEZ was it a little sharp on the wrist...But the
    stock is modified somewhat..It's short; But what a feel....
    
    Roak..to get off on a tangent;  I could always try to slap'em upside
    the head the 36" barrel of the Marlin super goose..
    
    
 Jeff

    I periodically fly flags in front of my house ... large ones .. no
    wimp stuff ....

    	.. the red/white/blue of the United States of America
    	.. the globe and anchor of the United States Marine Corps
    	.. the stars and bars of the Confederate States of America
    	.. the flag of the Republic of Texas

    what I fly depends upon my mood ... the particular holiday, and, just
    whatever the Hell takes my fancy.

    This evening my neighbor told me that if I flew all four flags at once,
    and left 'em up ... no burglar would dare step foot in the
    neighborhood, much less *my* house.

    Something to think about ...

    Bubba

    re .114
    
    What I was taught in the ALERT class was the difference between morally
    and legally shooting someone.  This is the scenario that the instructor
    used.
    
    Let's say that you are in your kitchen/dining room.  You, the homeowner
    has a gun, the intruder has a knife.  You are 20 feet apart and the
    intruder is not advancing on you.  He is *not* within distance to harm
    you so morally or ethically, you cannot shoot him, legally you probably
    can, but take a look how that would go down in court.  Ok, now, lets
    say said intruder started advancing on you, you warn him to stop, that
    you will shoot if he doesn't.  If he continues to advance on you, then
    ethically you can shoot him and it would look alot better in court.  Of
    course, the instructor pointed out that you'd better hope the intruder
    hasn't won any knife-throwing contests.  That is why he recommended the
    bedroom scenario.  If your hanging out behind your bed and are warning
    the intruder that you have a weapon and that you will use it, the
    moment the intruder steps in your bedroom ethically you can blow him
    away.  Two shots to the chest, one to the head, and this guy will not
    bother anyone anymore.
    
    Jeff, what caliber are the S&W that you have?  Personally I would
    prefer a semi-auto because the recoil isn't as hefty, the grip is
    better for me (I have small hands) and the clip is easier to handle. 
    The .38 I used to train with also had a hard trigger and my aim was
    much worse using that than the semi-auto ones that I used.
    
    Karen

    Rep. -2:  Bubba; SEMPER FI !!!
    
    Rep. -1
    
    Karen, 
    
    Sorry, all of the semi's were sold;  Everybody seems to like them.
    I do have some Model 67's CombatMaster pieces in a 4" barrel; .38
    calibur.  The hard grip problem can be taken care of, by supplementing
    the current grips with Pachmyer grips.  These weapons are in a "K"
    frame.  Also, there are a couple .357's in various flavors and barrel
    lengths.
    
    Starting to sound like a sales pitch.
    
    Jeff

    Nothing can match the fear of hearing the slide come home, or looking
    down the barrel of an M1911A1.

    Nothing.

    Bubba

    OK, I'll bite, what's an M1911A1?
    
    I was only a 13B4N grunt myself, so I wouldn't know.
    
    :-)
    
    ed

Re -2, Bubba, I like that kind of attitude

Re -1  M1922A1 is the designation for the Standard Goverment Colt 45 ACP 
semi automatic pistol.  

Ed

Last shoudl have read M1911A1

    re: a few notes found in this string.
    
    *WARNING*  Having the appearance of being predisposed to use lethal
    force in break-in or other self defense situations is, simply put, a
    very bad idea.  As such, boasting that you'd shoot an intruder, or
    calling the morgue before you head down to investigate a noise not a
    wise thing to do.
    
    - M

    The heavier hand guns have the disadvantage of possibly having a stray
    round hit a neighbor in his/her house.... that is if you live in a
    neighborhood where the houses are right next door.
    
    

  <<< Note 711.127 by 2B::ZAHAREE "Michael W. Zaharee, ULTRIX Engineering" >>>

    
>    *WARNING*  Having the appearance of being predisposed to use lethal
>    force in break-in or other self defense situations is, simply put, a
>    very bad idea.     


I disagree.  If you have to defend yourself, you have to be prepared to 
satisfy your _opponents_ victory conditions, not your own.  If the 
intruder/attacker is determined to do what he came to do and/or take your 
life in the process, then it's quite likely that deadly force will be 
required.  If you aren't prepared for this you'll probably be killed in 
short order if you aren't good at hiding under the bed, jumping out the 
window etc.

Ron

    re .129
    
    Perhaps you have misunderstood what I said or maybe I could have been
    clearer.  I was not refering to one's appearance at the time whatever
    situation occurs.  I was refering to the appearance, in this or any
    other forum, to have already made up one's mind to use lethal force in
    situations it cannot be known to warrant it until they occur.   From a
    legal perspective, writing a note stating "I'll kill anyone who breaks
    into my house" is probably a mistake.
    
    - M

Re: <<< Note 711.119 by CSC32::SCHIMPF >>>

>>    Tried that...But GEEZ was it a little sharp on the wrist...But the
>>    stock is modified somewhat..It's short; But what a feel....

Well if it has a stock you can still go under 18", but because it has a stock
it takes $200 to make it legal.

Weird laws...

                             Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.123 by MORO::BEELER_JE "HIGASHI NO KAZEAME!" >>>

>>    Nothing can match the fear of hearing the slide come home, or looking
>>    down the barrel of an M1911A1.

I'm a 1911A1 bigot, but I still think a 12ga pump is more fearsome sounding and
looking than the 'ol .45.  Mostly because people think [incorrectly] that all
you have to do to hit something with a shotgun is to have it in the same
timezone as the intended target.

                                  Roak

Re: <<< Note 711.121 by RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA "Strong and Determined" >>>

>>    What I was taught in the ALERT class was the difference between morally
>>    and legally shooting someone.  This is the scenario that the instructor
>>    used.
    
>>    Let's say that you are in your kitchen/dining room.  You, the homeowner
>>    has a gun, the intruder has a knife.  You are 20 feet apart and the
>>    intruder is not advancing on you.  He is *not* within distance to harm
>>    you...

Your instructor needs some education.  The police have a test called a "tulling
drill" (I may have the name wrong, if you're *really* interested I'll contact
our local police firearms instructor and find out what it is).

Simply it's a police officer with a holstered firearm loaded with blanks/primers
facing a stationary person with a rubber knife (don't want to get *too*
realistic!).

When the person with the knife starts to move, the officer draws and fires.  If
the person holding the knife makes contact before the shot, or comes so close
when the gun goes off that the person's momentum would still carry the knife to
the officer, the officer looses.

Question, how far away must the knife holder be in order for the officer to
"win"?



Answer: 15 feet minimum, 18 feet is more typical.  Yes, it seems too far,
doesn't it?  And this is with a trained officer.  With an unholstered firearm
the distance only shrinks to about 8 to 10 feet.

Moral:  A person with a knife is a lot more dangerous a lot further away than
most people think.

                             Roak

    re .134:
    
    I was getting around to that point, thanks.
    
    - M

    Some respondents have afforded themselves the luxury of denouncing the
    keeping of firearms for self-protection in the home.  There are notions
    that theives are cowards that will flee at a display of noise and
    lights.  Our privileged European brethren may even be afforded the
    opportunity to take tea with their theif.  Unfortunately, these notions
    do reflect the totality of all possible experiences.
    
    About two months ago, on the edge of a small town a few miles from my
    rural home, a fine old man that operated a restaurant in the front of
    his home was stabbed to death by an unknown number of theives in his
    home some time in the late afternoon.  His invalid mother-in-law was
    also killed.  A few weeks earlier, a gang of goblins broke into another
    small town home during the evening hours and terrorized the family
    before killing the husband.  Robbery was the motive.  The goblins
    believed the dead man was a drug dealer and had lots of money in the
    house.  Whether or not he was a dealer is irrelevent, what matters is
    their willingness to kill a homeowner for money they suppose is on the
    premises.
    
    I bring this up because it should remind us that things can go bump at
    all hours of the day and not everyone abandons their home during the
    day.  My wife for instance is usually home during the day, which is
    when most break-ins occur in our area.  Although I had a shotgun as a
    boy and did four years of military service, I was for quite a few years
    a disarmed pacifist.  I still have a low regard for military
    adventures, but am no longer disarmed.  At our previous residence two
    late-night break-in attempts were foiled by loudly announcing the
    police were being called.  They were always nearby then.  Now we live
    20 minutes from the sheriff's station and only god knows where they
    might be on patrol.  I sleep with a 12 guage riot gun and 3" magnum 00
    buckshot on  my side of the bed and my wife has a .38 special with
    Nyclad hollow points on her side.  We are not likely to go out the
    window as it is quite a drop.  We know these tools will quarantee us
    safety, but one thing far dumber than bringing a blade to a gun fight
    is bringing bare hands to a knife fight.  See above.
    
    ken

    Just washed my fingers and I can't do a thing with them.  The last
    sentence of .137 should have been:
    
    Unfortunately, these notions do NOT reflect the totality of all
    possible experiences.
    
    ken

    	One point that hasn't been brought up is that there is a world of
    difference between someone who is breaking into apparently unoccupied
    houses during the day to suplement his/her income and someone who is
    breaking into apparently occupied houses during the night.  The latter
    is not just in it for the money.  S/he is looking for thrills or to
    hurt someone.  If someone just wants money or goods to turn into money
    or other goods, they go after unoccupied houses and try to never
    encounter anyone.  The profit motive is not the important thing to the
    night intruder.
    						John
    

    RE: .135, since I personally know the shop owner described, I am
    familiar with the WHOLE story. The person who broke in had the pipe and
    when ordered to drop the pipe, told the owner, "I'm going to kill your 
    (racial epitaph) ass." He then moved toward the owner, who then fired.
    The store owner WAS initially arrested (actually harrassed an arrested,
    as were his sons who arrived on the scene soon after), but as you said,
    the charges were dropped.
    
    My PERSONAL view is that if the attacker is a safe distance away, I
    would order him to drop his weapon, but if he didn't comply, I would
    fire.
    
    Eric

    The body was found in the doorway, Eric, upper torso on the sidewalk.

    He didn't advance very far, did he?

    I'm not saying Don should have been prosecuted.  And I know him
    too, I bought my last 3 guns from him.

    He had just broken in, so he didn'd advance too far. As another
    interesting note, when the police notified his mother, she said, "I'm
    not surprised, I expected it one of these days".
    
    Eric

    Re.105
    Thanks for posting that I understand the conditions but failed to make
    that clear in my reply.
    
    -j

    The story of the gun shop shooting a few notes back brings up a point
    worth highlighting: after you've shot someone is self-defense, expect
    to be treated as a homicidal maciac until the DA decides not to
    prosecute. If you still have the gun in your hand when the cops arrive,
    expect to be ordered at gunpoint to put it down, to be then slammed on
    your face while being cuffed, have your rights read to you and be
    advised you are being arrested on suspicion of murder.
    
    Don't take it personally, be stoic. All they know is someone is dead
    and you had the gun in your hand. Their priorities are to disarm
    everyone, identify and secure the suspect(s), and protect evidence.
    
    You can make it easier on yourself by putting the gun down as the cops
    arrive, stepping away from it, and keeping your hands where they can
    see them.
    
    Remember they've been tricked in training, by a bad guy who shot
    someone and then pretended to be the good guy until he could get the
    drop on them.
    

    re .144
    
    Agreed.  It also would help, if you get a chance to phone the police,
    to describe your physical traits and dress and identify yourself
    clearly as the good guy.  If/when the police show up, they'll have at
    least some information as to what they'll find.  (I can't recall
    whether this was mentioned previously.)
    
    I would not holster my firearm (or toss it away) until the responding
    peace officer had drawn his/hers and had everyone covered at very close
    range.  If I were forced to toss it away, I would unload it first and
    throw the ammo in a different direction than the firearm.
    
    A prisoner always performs second-by-second scans of threatening
    situations, looking for opportunities to bail out.  Transfer of control
    from one party to another provides just such an opportunity, and in
    fact it also provides the criminal(s) with a chance to take a hostage. 
    To minimize the chances of this, the criminal(s) should be lying on the
    floor face down with head(s) pointed away from you and each other if
    possible, hands behind head(s) and nowhere near objects that could be
    picked up quickly and used as weapons (lamps, fireplace tools, cats,
    and so on).  Legs should be spread widely, I believe.  A person in this
    position is far less able to cause additional mischief than a person
    who is standing three feet from you when you open the door for the
    police.  The prone/face-down position also establishes psychological
    dominance, which provides a good measure of deterrence.
                                                             

    	Personally, I prefer to avoid gunfire.   A baseball bat, perhaps.
    
    	I have taken the strategy of becoming friends with my neighbors
        and developing a relationship to "cover" each other in emergencies.
    
    	My bedroom door is locked at night.  If there are sounds in the
        house of an intruder, my plan is simply to go OUT THE WINDOW
    	and next door to one of my nieghbors, and to summon the police.
    
    	Obviously, one can then also observe one's house & the street,
        should an intruder flee before the police arive.
    
        I once had an intruder break into my hotel room in the middle of
        the night, but I had "booby-trapped" the window so that it would
        create a tremendous "crash"...the intruder realized he/she had
        "blown it" and backed off immediately.

.146> Personally, I prefer to avoid gunfire.

I also prefer to avoid gunfire ....but...

.146> A baseball bat, perhaps.

What if the intruder is (in the vernacular of today's politically correct
language) "differently armed".  It never made much sense, to me, to bring
a baseball bat to a gun fight.

Bubba

>What if the intruder is (in the vernacular of today's politically correct
>language) "differently armed".  It never made much sense, to me, to bring
>a baseball bat to a gun fight.

You just have to have an INCREDIBLY fast swing :-) :-).

As for windows, everyone is not spry enough to use this technique. Some
bedroom windows on not on the first floor.

    followup from the "baseball bat advocate": 
    
    I'm not suggesting that "my" plan is the best for everyone, everywhere.
    Nor, I susupect, is there a universal "best" solution.  I wonder if
    those parents whose children have killed themselves with a family 
    "security gun" may now figure that their security plan wasn't so good,
    after all.
    
    > It never made much sense, to me, to bring a baseball bat to a gun
    > fight.
    
    Right.  Dont do that!  The idea is NOT to get into a gun fight!  
    Not to confront the intruder and cause them to use a weapon!  That's 
    why the bedroom door is secured!  Most security books (such as 
    "How To Survive in the City") recommend a solid bedroom door with 
    reinforced hinges and a strong lock.  It does double duty, protecting 
    against fire as well as violence.
    
    < "Some bedroom windows are not on the first floor."
    
    Right, of course.  In these situations, there should be a FIRE ESCAPE 
    ROUTE from your bedroom that does not require you to open your bedroom 
    door!  Use that route.  And you are, I suspect, far more likely to have 
    a fire in your house than you are to encounter an armed intruder! 
    
    Off course, your emergency exit plan should be consistant with your 
    level of physical fitness.  If physically disabled, a very secure
    door and a separate phone line in the bedroom might be "a best answer".  
    If you are dealing with a situation where someone is going to break
    down a reinforced door just to attack YOU, ok, I agree then that you
    probably want to either change you lifestyle and/or have a gun to
    deal with whoever wants to kill you that badly!
    
    If it requires going DOWN A STAIRWAY to exit your house from your
    bedroom, not having an alternate fire escape route is not a good 
    security plan no matter how many guns you have!  

    	While this is the highest-rate burglary area in France, and I know
    or know of quite a number of people who have been burgled, it is rare
    to actually see a burglar. I can think of only two cases.
    
    	A woman I know woke to find a burglar in her bedroom. He apologised
    and left (though without offering to empty his pockets first).
    
    	A couple of weeks ago a DEC security guard found a couple of men
    looking for valuables in the building where I work. He chased them as
    hard as he could, but they were obviously more fit, and escaped.
    
    	In these two cases the burglars probably had physical superiority
    but chose to leave without violence. In other cases of acquaintances of
    mine it was estimated afterwards that at least 4 men must have been
    involved in the burglary to move all of the furniture out in the time,
    so they would have had physical superiority. Why is it assumed that
    burglary is likely to lead to violence?

.151> Why is it assumed that burglary is likely to lead to violence?

If I catch 'em there will be violence. No "assumed" about it.

Bubba

    The bedroom door closed and locked is fine for a couple or single
    person.  What about a couple with a young kid, such as my wife and
    I.  We close and 'barricade' our bedroom door.  Now what when the
    intruder comes upstairs, my son is at risk.  Go out the window, same
    issue, I won't do that and leave my wife and son behind.  It isn't
    practical to have him sleep in the same room as us just in case 
    someone breaks into the house.  But maybe his/our lives are worth
    having to do that.  I can just see convincing my wife that it makes
    sense to have our son sleep in our room in case someone breaks in.
    Hell, I can hardly convice her to CLOSE our bedroom door, let alone
    lock it.  I agree that having an unlocked up gun in the house is
    an undue risk if there are children around.  If its appropriately
    locked up, and you need it during the night you just lost the 
    advantage fumbling around with locks and keys getting the damm
    thing out while the intruder 'patiently' waits for you.
    
    Jeff

    re.153 How about locking the gun up in the daytime and unlocking it 
    before bedtime. I mean, if you can remember to brush your teeth...
    
    Or, there's the 'magic ring' modification for some makes of revolver.
    Basically, there is a safety added to the gun which is disengaged
    by a magnet in a ring Mommy and Daddy wear. Child can not fire gun,
    assailants can not fire gun.

    If I forget to brush my teeth I have dirty teeth. If I forget to lock
    the gun I may have a dead kid.
    
    I don't think its so dangerous in my area that I need to have a loaded
    gun at my bedside... its just that once in twenty years when you might
    need it and don't have it accessable.  I think the locked door with a
    fast trip out the window is an appropriate response for my family IF
    I didn't have a kid in another room.  Hopefully the scattered toys
    downstairs would warn any intruder that there IS a kid in the house
    and, hopefully would keep him from coming upstairs... unless he is
    a nut that likes to hurt kids, or (more likely) simply doesn't care.
    The fact that he is IN the house at night proves to me that he has
    a 'slight' disregard for the rights and well being of others.
    
    

    There is the "box" which bolts to a headboard with a combination lock
    on it.  Before bed you "unlock the box by working the combination, in
    the morning all you have to do is spin the dial to reset the lock. 
    This isn't difficult to remember, and was a recommendation from a
    hunter safty instructer who also teaches home security courses for
    women.  
    
    I personally like the "magic ring" idea, as it keeps your weapon from
    being used on you (other than as a bludgeon) if through mischance your
    attacker manages to get close enough to take it away from you.
    
    Also, aren't you forgetting the phrase, "you can't kidproof a gun, but
    you can gunproof your kids?"  My children have been raised with the
    rules that guns are not toys, that they are never to touch one without
    an adult present, and that should they see one left out in another home
    to not touch it, leave the area, and find a responsible adult to take
    care of the problem.  Also they have been taught to treat all guns as
    if they were loaded.
    
    Meg

    Should an intruder come into one's house, too much time would be lost
    in most cases to stop him/her.  Heck, most of the time when the clock
    rings it takes one a minute to wake up and get a handle on what day it
    is.  Now you've got to fumble for a gun and then fumble with finding
    the bullets and loading it.  
                                                                 
    I know the danger of having loaded guns and children in the house, but
    an unloaded gun ain't as good as having a good baseball bat.  Having a
    gun in one place and a clip in another might be better than fumbling
    with bullets and a revolver, but there is still the risk of a kid
    finding the clip and the gun... and loading it.
    
    I think that with older children, than an understanding can be
    instilled in them... LEAVE IT ALONE!  I can remember being very young
    and knowing that my dad hid his German Lugar(sp) in a dresser drawer
    under some underwear.  Did I ever touch it?  No way.  Did my brother or
    sister?  No way.  As I don't have a young child, I do have a special
    place for a loaded gun.  Still, it may not give me enough time, having
    to wake up and figure out what's going on.  Then again, it might give
    me that extra second that I need to protect my family.
    
    There's lots of tough decisions in life... and lots of risks.

    re .157:
    
    > Having a gun in one place and a clip in another might be better than
    > fumbling with bullets and a revolver, but there is still the risk of a
    > kid finding the clip and the gun... and loading it.
    
    Keep the magazine in your pocket.
    
    - M
    

.156> Also, aren't you forgetting the phrase, "you can't kidproof a gun, but
.156> you can gunproof your kids?"
    
    Exactly.
    
    Children will ocassionally find themselves over other people's houses,
    people who own guns.  For those times, the best precaution is a child
    that has been properly raised and taught how to handle (or not handle)
    guns.
    
    The best defense is education, not isolation.

>    Children will ocassionally find themselves over other people's houses,
>    people who own guns.  For those times, the best precaution is a child
>    that has been properly raised and taught how to handle (or not handle)
>    guns.
    
    So "properly raising" children should include education on gun use?
    I have a responsibility to teach my children about firearms and
    "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
    guns to be kept in my home?
    
    I can see that in many ways you're right - I should at least teach
    them to avoid contact with any guns they may see. But I would be
    far far happier to live in a society in which such warnings were
    unnecessary. And as I see it, your "guns are inevitable" attitude 
    contributes to making those warnings necessary.

    ...Robert

    re .160:
    
    > I have a responsibility to teach my children about firearms and
    > "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
    > guns to be kept in my home?
    
    Why not?  I'll bet you also have NO intentation of getting into an 
    automobile accident.  Should your children wear seatbelts?
    
    - M

    re .161, his kids will most likely ride in cars, though, so not a good
    comparison.  Many people live their entire lives without ever touching
    a gun, or wanting to.  Most people drive cars though.  Cars are a
    necessity in our society.  Many people, thankfully, do not consider
    guns to be a necessity.
    
    Lorna
    

    Do you all teach your children not to put their hands on irons to see
    if they are hot?  Gunproofing a child avoids the tragic situation which
    happens all to frequently of a strange child in a home finding an
    unsecured gun and treating it like a toy, instead of following the
    "don't touch, leave the area and find a responsible adult rules" a
    gunproofed child will follow.  It is no different than teaching a child
    not to drink out of strange bottles or to randomly eat pills because
    they look like candy.
    
    Meg

    
    	yeah, but in the case of guns....ignorance is not necessarily 
    	bliss.

    I believe everyone should teach children that guns are dangerous and
    evil, and should never be touched.  That's what I was taught and what I
    taught my child.  A child who has been taught never to touch a gun will
    not have an accident with it, because, if they're doing what they were
    taught, they will not touch a gun.  It worked for me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re 162:
    
    You're looking at the analogy incorrectly.  I did not say that riding
    in cars was analogous to touching a gun.  Kids going to play at the
    neighbors' house would be more on par with riding in a car.  The odds
    of being in an automobile accident (despite anyones intentations) are
    pretty high, but of course we all wear seatbelts.  Your claim is that
    the odds of children needing to know about guns is high as well. 
    
    But guess what--- how high are the stakes?
    
    - M

    re .165:
    
    > I believe everyone should teach children that guns are dangerous and
    > evil, and should never be touched.  That's what I was taught and what I
    
    Well, except for the "evil" part, what the heck, they're your kids. 
    It sounds like they're only wearing a "lap belt", though...
    
    - M

.160>  I have a responsibility to teach my children about firearms and
.160>  "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
.160>  guns to be kept in my home?
    
    I think "responsibility" implies too much.
    
    I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm only trying to make sure
    you realize that even children from gun-less homes, will, sometimes,
    encounter guns in another home.
    
    And when that happens, they will be better off if they've already been
    told how to handle or not handle a gun.

    For what it's worth, most kids will get the point that guns are
    dangerous weapons if all you do is take them to a field and fire
    the gun (assuming it's a respectable caliber).
    
    The noise alone will drive home the point that this is not a toy,
    and it's much more dangerous than TV shows would have you believe.

>    So "properly raising" children should include education on gun use?
>    I have a responsibility to teach my children about firearms and
>    "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
>    guns to be kept in my home?

    So "properly raising" children should include education on alcohol use?
    I have a responsibility to teach my children about booze and
    "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
    booze to be kept in my home?

    			Alfred

RE:  Note 711.158 2B::ZAHAREE 

>    Keep the magazine in your pocket.

But I sleep in the raw.
    

    	To several of those here, I advise you to move to a safer society.
    
    The first time in my life I ever saw a handgun I was 20 years old, and
    the gun was attached to the belt of a guard at the U.S. embassy.
    
    Later I had a friend who had a gun licence. The conditions of his
    licence included that all his guns that he was not actually carrying
    had to be kept in a three-quarter ton safe.
    
    In Britain, guns are either *very* securely locked up, or being
    personally carried by expert and licensed marksmen. This tends to make
    it difficult for even a professional criminal to get access to a gun,
    never mind a kid.

 re: Lorna

>    I believe everyone should teach children that guns are dangerous and
>    evil, and should never be touched.  That's what I was taught and what I
>    taught my child.  A child who has been taught never to touch a gun will
>    not have an accident with it, because, if they're doing what they were
>    taught, they will not touch a gun.  It worked for me.

 No doubt the same people that taught you that guns were "dangerous and
evil" also taught you that sex was "dangerous and evil." One assumes you
adopted a similar attitude of categoric agreement with your parents'
teachings, right? And what did they tell you about drugs? I bet they said
how horrible that was, too. Only a complete idiot believes that their
children will always avoid whatever they tell them is bad. 

re: Robert

>    I have a responsibility to teach my children about firearms and
>    "responsible use" even though I have NO intention of ever allowing
>    guns to be kept in my home?


 To follow your line of reasoning, parents would never under any circumstances 
tell their children about condoms or other forms of birth control since they
have "NO intention of ever allowing premarital sex to occur in my home."
Go ahead, blindly assume that the world is not full of pitfalls, that ignorance
is better than knowledge, that "it won't happen if I never talk about it."
Guess what- "good" Catholic girls have gotten pregnant, and even gotten STDs.
Even though their parents counseled them against trying the forbidden fruit.

 There was a show on several months ago that documented a number of cases
where children killed other children with guns. In most cases, the overriding
factor was that children had not been instructed how to react around a gun.
In one case, a group of boys found a discarded handgun (a criminal had tossed
the gun in the bushes during a getaway). Of the three boys, only one had been
properly instructed. He told the other boys not to touch it, and left to find
an adult. The other boys began playing with the gun and one managed to 
accidently discharge the weapon, killing the other. The two boys involved in the
accident came from strictly anti-gun households. Their immediate reaction
was to call for, guess what, more gun control legislation. Idjits. They let
their politics kill their son. Now you can bet your child's life that nothing
similar will happen if you keep him/her in the dark. Not me. Even though
the chances of that happening are pretty slim, to that boy the chance was
100% and he is 100% dead. You can't just make another one. Save the ones you
have, even if it means acknowledging some unpleasant realities.

 the Doctah

    re .173, no, Doctah, actually I had to find out for myself that sex is
    "dangerous and evil."  My parents never mentioned it to me. :-)
    
    All we can do is try to raise our children with the principles, values
    and attitudes that we would like them to have.  There's no guarantee
    that anybody's child is going to be the person they wanted them to be,
    regardless of how they're raised.  We can only do the best we know how.
    
    My parents, especially my father, who was extremely opinionated,
    offered me lots of opinions about various things as I was growing up. 
    Some of them I agree with and others I don't.  I think the same is true
    of most parents and children.
    
    re .172, now that you mention it, except for policemen, the first time
    I ever saw a handgun, in the possession of a private citizen, was about
    3 or 4 yrs. ago.  (I was 38.)  (Even in the US) It didn't bother me 
    too much because the person was very responsible acting about it and 
    didn't do anything stupid with it, like try to tease me or scare me with it.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re
    a whole bunch of entries.

    i wish that those who offer -or think they are offering- (and both
    happen) rational arguments in support of guns would take the time to
    explain what it is about American society/culture that is so different
    from our cousins' societies/cultures in western Europe as to
    necessitate the wide use of guns that if not unique to the USofA is at
    least not very common in Western Europe.



    				herb
    

    RE: Note 711.171 by IMTDEV::BERRY "Dwight Berry"

    > RE:  Note 711.158 2B::ZAHAREE 
    >
    > >    Keep the magazine in your pocket.
    >
    > But I sleep in the raw.
    
    You were just dying to tell us that, weren't you?  :-)
    
    Put it under your pillow.  (The magazine, that is.)
    
    - M

    Herb,
    
    I don't know that life is that much different in Europe than here, as I
    have never been there.  
    
    I don't feel particularly unsafe in my westside home, but the PD, has
    an average response time of 15 minutes for emergencies in my
    neighborhood.  This is far too long for me to have to deal with a
    prowler inside my home.  What am I supposed to do, ask him if he would
    like me to nuke him a cup of coffee, or have a homebrew while I wait
    for response from the police?  I have two kids to think about.
    
    To me keeping a defensive weapon is just taking reponsibility for my
    and my family's safety.  The police are not chartered to protect me but
    the greater safety of society as a whole.  Their response is too often
    after a crime has occurred, and by then it's too late for apologies,
    just to pick up the pieces and write up the report.
    
    Keeping a noisy dog of a breed with a reputation is still my first line
    of defense.  She gives me enough warning to wake up and figure out
    whether or not I need to do anything more than open the door and turn
    her loose.  Firearms are for use only when needed and only to stop
    whatever is going on.  (I still prefer flinging felines).
    
    I don't think we are much different than many parts of the world.  My
    first SIL used to keep a large pot of water boiling on the stove when
    swhe was home alone for much the same reason I keep my chow, and cats
    and fiearms.  She was from Malaysia, and she felt that boiling water
    thrown into someone's face would slow them down long enough for her to
    get to safety.  Same idea, just different applications.
    
    Meg 

    re .177, I don't like the idea of flinging felines at intruders.  What
    if the cat got hurt?  One of the last things I'd want to have happen is
    that one of my cats be hurt.  Even though I hate guns, I'd sooner blow
    an intruder's head off, than risk one of my cats getting hurt.
    
    Lorna
    

Well, you've all got some good points. But to me, the bottom line is
that YOU want to keep guns in YOUR home, yet you say it's up to me to 
teach my children how to react to them when they visit. I resent having
that responsibility imposed on me. To be sure, there will always be 
dangers out in the world that I must warn my children about. But I'd like
to be able to assume that friends' houses are safe places to visit, even
for children who've never seen a gun.

...Robert

    What if the cat got hurt? How about a cat hat and matching gloves....:)

    My firearms are kept locked away from children.  HOWEVER, yes that was
    a shout, I can't control the actions of other families and how they
    treat or don't treat gun safety.  I can only train my children what to
    do in the event that she finds one.  This rates right up there with the
    survival skills of not getting into stranger's cars, staying beyond
    arms length from people she doesn't know and looking both ways before
    crossing the street.  I mean I LOOK for other peoples kids who are
    likely to dash out in front of a car, and I EXPECT other people to
    whatch out for children, but in reality, they don't.  Am I supposed to
    keep my kids from crossing streets?
    
    Lorna,
    
    I owe a large debt to cats because of one who voluntarily launched into
    a would-be attackers face about 20 years ago.  Believe me, that cat
    dined on the finest chunk of liver I could afford.
    
    Meg

    re: .179
    
    Perhaps calling it YOUR responsibility is technically incorrect or too
    strong.  But my children's lives are worth more than guibbling about
    what is who's responsiblity.  While I feel quite confident that my home
    is no problem, I can't control the actions of my neighbors'.  *I*
    prefer to arm my children with the knowledge that could save their
    lives.  
    
    - M

    There is something about our culture that causes us to have 
    attitudes about -and use of- guns that are very different from the
    attitudes and use of same among most of our western European cousins. I
    don't know just what they are but whatever they are, I believe the
    attitudes are based on much more deep-seated urges/beliefs than a
    feeling that police response time is excessive.

    A (kinda rhetorical) question...
    What is it about our values/culture/<whatever> that allows the NRA to be
    such a formidable advocate in our country, although -I suggest- such
    advocacy would be ridiculed into oblivion in many European countries?

    Some more (kinda rhetorical) questions...
    How many innocent people are killed each year by accidental shootings
    How many "bad guys" are killed each year by armed private citizens?

    				herb

    	 The difference between us and most European countries is that the
    farmers who overthrew the lawful government figured that it was a good
    idea for the citizens to have the ability to do so again if the need
    arose.  So far it seems to be working.  Our government (as bad as it
    may be) hasn't chosen to kill 6,000,000 citizens because of religious
    disagreement, or to starve 20,000,000 citizens to further some half
    baked economic scheme.  We also haven't had any foreign army walk
    through and take everything over.  The only european country that
    hasn't had that experience is Switzerland and the appear to be even
    more serious about the citizens' right to keep and bear arms than we
    are.
    	We may have a persistent level of violence, but it sure beats the
    tyranny that most of the rest of the world has come to call "good
    government".  The next reply is a poem by Kipling that kind of sums the
    whole thing up.
    						John

    
                   ---------------------------------
    
                   THE GODS OF THE COPYBOOK HEADINGS
    
    As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
    I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
    Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
    
    We were living in tress when they met us.  They showed us each in turn
    That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn.
    But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision, and Breadth of Mind,
    So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of 
      Mankind.
    
    We moved as the Spirit listed.  *They* never altered their pace,
    Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
    But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
    That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone
      out in Rome.
    
    With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
    They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
    They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had wings.
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful
      things.
    
    When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of tribes would
      cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of The Copybook Headings said:
      *"Stick to the Devil you know."*
    
    On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
    (Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
    Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
      *"The Wages of Sin is Death."*
    
    In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
    By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
    But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
      *"If you don't work you die."*
    
    Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards
      withdrew,
    And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
    That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four -
    And the Gods of the Gopybook Headings limped up to explain it once
      more.
    
    
    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began -
    And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to Fire;
    
    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! 

    re .184, Switzerland, the only European country?  When was the last
    time a foreign Army conquered England?????
    
    Lorna
    

    re .186
    	Ok, continental european.

    That's a powerful assertion

    Where do your figures come from? (say post 1789)
    Do they pertain to western Europe?

    re .184, Americans are also descended from the adventurers who stole the
    country from the Native Americans.  Maybe that's another reason we're
    so violent - inherited.  First we sent the British home, then we
    slaughtered the Native Americans, etc.  I'm so proud.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna,

    We also shot at the loyal citizens of the crown too.... Perhaps that
    makes us anarchist� 

    Wears a white beard, must be a pacifist,
    wears a red suit, must be a Communist,
    gives out toys, certainly a philanthropist (wow! imagine me spelling
    that word!:) )


    <cause of Santa Clause>
                  

       re .184/.186/.187:
       
       Are Spain & Portugal in Europe?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    	That's the problem with notes.  You keep on finding people who
    haven't heard of World War I or World War II.  During the course of one
    or the other of these two wars every country of continental Europe was
    occupied in whole or in part by some foreign power.  The only exception
    is Switzerland, which also happens to be the european country which is
    most similar to the US in terms of private ownership of firearms. 
    Actually their laws are less strict than ours; a private person may own
    an artillery piece.
    	This makes me think of the assertion that people who live in the
    country don't need funs for protection because their crime rate is so
    low.  The people making this assertion never stop to think that the
    crime rate may be low because there is a strong likelihood that there
    is a person with a gun waiting behind any door that a criminal may try
    to enter.  Crime is much safer for criminals in the city because
    statistically so many fewer people have guns.
    						John
    

    Do I understand you to be arguing that the reason we haven't been
    occupied by some foreign power is because of our constitutional right
    to bear arms? (I would have thought it had rather more to do with the
    Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, our Navy, and then our guided missiles
    than with your constitutional right to own -say- a shotgun)

    Are you in addition arguing that the reason we haven't had 20,000,000
    starving people is because of our policy on guns? (I would have guessed
    food stamps had more to do with it than guns). (by the way, U.S.S.R is
    not western Europe)

    Unless you are arguing one of the above I believe the 6,000,000
    deaths and 20,000,000 starvings are irrelevant (but not a bad smoke
    screen)

    re .190, wow, George, you got a dictionary!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .192

    That's the problems with single-issue arguments. I find it difficult to
    believe that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans had less to do with the US
    never being seriously threatened by invasion than the private ownership
    of handguns. Or that Switzerland's physical and topological locale had
    nothing to do with invaders not sweeping over (and I do mean ooooover)
    its boundaries.

    Everybody who eats peanut butter will eventually die. That doesn't mean
    peanut butter is poisonous.

    OSI Layers 8 and 9, hard at work...

    re .191
    	I had forgotten about Portugal.  The spanish civil war was a warmup
    to the main event, and had major involvement of Germany and the USSR,
    to the point where it resembles our Vietnam war more than a real civil
    war.
    re .195
    	The Atlantic and Pacific oceans have certainly protected us from
    outside tyranny to some extent.  Without a control we can't prove
    whether or not it has protected us from internal tyranny, although we
    certainly seem to be doing better in that respect than our neighbors to
    the north and south.
    	If Switzerland has been protected from invasion only by topology,
    then why hasn't similar topology protected Yugoslavia and other
    mountainous european countries?
    						John
     

    re .196, we've done better than our neighbors to the North in regards
    to internal tyranny???  Canada is run by a tyrant?
    
    Lorna
    

    Ask the Quebecois French that question

    The point is that history is an incredibly complex interplay of
    different factors. Picking up on one statistic and attempting to explain
    the history of the world for the past century using it alone is not very
    convincing. Switzerland has not been protected solely by topology, but
    it's certainly a factor - it's *far* easier to go around than over.
    There are many other factors. Neither gun ownership or mountainous
    terrain can be held up as the determining factor. (If you want to weight
    them, I'll give the terrain a much greater weight than the gun
    ownership, but I'm not a historian.)

    re .198, well, my father was, (and several of my relatives still are) a
    Canadian, of Scottish ancestry, so I guess I've seen a different angle.
    
    Lorna
    

    	My brother lives in Canada and will continue to until his 
    son is 18.  From everything I've seen and heard it is even worse than
    the PRM.
    						John
     

    What does PRM stand for?
    
    
    				herb

        re .-1,
        
>    What does PRM stand for?
        
        People's Republic of Massachusetts
        
        Dan

 The general idea of this note...for those who might wish to read no futher :-) 

        "...robbers and burglars are currently winning the home 
         shoot-outs at the rate of better than 2 to 1..."     

        "Another study, made in the Cleveland area, shows that a gun 
         purchased to PROTECT a family is six times more likely to be 
         used to KILL a family member or friend.  (Source:1, p342)

 (Note: published sources detailed at the bottom  of the note)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Source "RIPOFFS" 
                  Chapter title: "Confronting a burglar"     

  "Resisting a burglar is foolhardy, for burglars aren't usually violent
   unless backed into a corner....You will most usually LOSE a gun duel
   with a seasoned criminal....The main question you should ask yourself
   about about resistance is. 'What do I have to gain and what do I have
   to lose?'  The obvious answer is if you win the duel, you save your
   possessions; if you lose, you lose your life."  (page 149)

  "I can't emphasize too strongly that you should never surprise a burglar.
   Often his first instinct, if you do, is to react violently - even if
   he acts out of cowardice.  (p149)

  "Should you awaken at night and hear a burglar downstairs, lock your
   bedroom door and phone the police, if there is a phone in the room.
   Don't go downstairs until (you are sure the intruder has left." (p149)

  "You're not going to stop a PROFESSIONAL burglars if they're after your
   possessions ... but THE GREAT MAJORITY OF BURGLARIES ARE PREVENTABLE
   if certain simple precautions are followed."  (p128)

  "More than half of all burglars force inadequate front or back door 
   locks in order to break in.  An additional 7 percent gain entrance
   thru OPEN doors or windows.  In about 10 percent, burglars break 
   windows to gain entry." (p143)

                        Chapter title: "GUNS"

  "Firearms, unlike well-trained dogs, are so dangerous a method of self-
   protection that they hardly deserve any serious consideration...
   'Professional breakers and enterers have long since adjusted their
   techniques to the annoying rise in home guns....Burglars and robbers
   have a clear edge in any encounter....In our best privately armed city,
   Detroit, robbers and burglars are currently winning the home shoot-outs
   at the rate of better than 2 to 1....The prowler in the night accounts
   for less than 3 percent of our gun deaths.  The BULK comes from perfectly
   law-abiding, but gun-toting people' " - Newsweek article by Thomas Deikes.
   (p341-342)

   "Another study, made in the Cleveland area, shows that a gun purchased
    to PROTECT a family is six times more likely to be used to KILL a
    family member or friend." (p342)
  
   "Accidents involving gun owners, their wives, children, friends, and
    neighbors are a much greater danger than possible injury from a
    criminal, especially IF YOU FOLLOW THE OTHER PRECAUTIONS AVAILABLE 
    TO YOU." (p344)
   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Source: "SURVIVAL IN THE CITY"
  Chapter: "City Labyrinths: Losers; The Belligerent (Armed) or Phony Tough"

   "Nor are guns the answer.  The ordinary person, it has been found,
    will use any available pistol all too indiscriminately.  If what police
    say about the average citizen who is stirred to lose his temper is to
    be believed--that an honest, decent person will quite readily stick a
    knife into their spouse in the heat of an argument--think of the effect
    of a gun lying around. (p162)

   "We use guns in passion, we use them emotionally, our children may pick
    them up in the apartment, our marriage partner may fire them at us--
    or we naively try to fire at someone who is committing a crime and hit
    an innocent person instead....Handguns create MANY more problems than
    they solve. (p162)

   "The warlike personality can become blind to reason in an orgy of
    I'll-show-them motivations....These (guns) are weapons which a belligerent
    character will choose to satisfy his basically aggressive instincts.
    He isn't going for self-protection at all..." (p162)
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Source:  "RIPOFFS" 

  And even if you suceed, who have you killed in your midnight shootout?
                      
   "Most burglary arrests in the U.S. involve males under 18 years of
    age, and most of these youngsters are 15 years old."   (p127)

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (1) source: "RIPOFFS (A complete survival guide designed to protect you
              and yours against murderers and muggers, rapists and 
              molesters, kidnappers and blackmailers, burglars and ...)", 
              by Robert Hendrickson, the Viking Press.   First edition.

 (2) source: "SURVIVAL IN THE CITY" 
	     "...how to guard yourself against hustlers, con men, muggers,
              burglars,... and other low forms of city life....tells you
	      how to hold on to what's yours and how to stay alive to
              enjoy it".
              by Anthony Greenbank, Harper & Row.  First U.S. edition.

    	Availability of guns is hardly a guarantee of peace and security
    for the individual. For a number of years both the U.S. and the
    U.S.S.R. would give weapons to anyone in Afghanistan who said the right
    words. I believe there was a similar situation in Vietnam.
    
    	When a country is threatened from the outside, permission to have
    arms is not a problem. The national threat will ensure that almost any
    citizen is less of a threat to the government than the external one.
    The Home Guard in Britain was inadequately equipped during WWII not
    because they weren't trusted but because the guns didn't exist.
    
    	Britain, Portugal and Switzerland have not been invaded recently
    mainly because of geographic barriers and partly because of political
    considerations. Sweden was not invaded during WWII, not because of
    geographic barriers (Norway was invaded) but because of politics.
    Portugal and Spain sometimes came to blows in South America, but
    political considerations and a mountain range prevented a serious
    conflict at home.
    
    	To play statistics, during the last 70 years out of countries that
    have *not* been invaded in Western Europe (Britain, Sweden, Portugal, 
    Switzerland) only one has a formal militia. Of those that did have a
    formal militia, that didn't help protect the Vichy government from
    invasion by Britain , the U.S. etc...

    If what the author intended by PRM is "People's Republic of
    Massachusetts" then I can ignore his other comments in comfort.

    PRM? Wow! That is a William Lob cliche! There was the Peoples Republic of 
    Massachusetts and there was the Commie Wealth of Massachusetts too.
    Man alive! Did Wil have an in for the state he lived in. He resided
    at Prides Crossing Mass, and owned a news paper called the
    Union Leader. Were old fashious(sp) never die, the live on to write for 
    the Union Leader.

    The Union Leader has a few nick names too. Like the Fashious(sp) Leader,
    and the Un-Union Onion...... :) Some local folk lore. Hope that I
    don't get set seen hidden for this. Many radio and TV and other such
    have made remarks as such about Lobe. There even was a book written
    about him, titled, "Whose William Lobe, or Whose afraid of William
    Lobe?".. Something like that. Anyhow the book goes into his life and
    crime as he attacked many would be hopeful presidential candidates
    that stomped the cold and frozen north land called New Hampshire.
    As they bitterly try to stay alive with either the cold north wind down
    their collars or the cold Union Leader in their ears, butts, what ever
    body cavity you wish to imagine.
    
    

re: .204

	Thanks for taking the time to organize and type this all in.  This
	is a wonderfully constructive contribution to the topic of guns as
	a defensive tool.  Bravo!

	Mark

    re:   .198 by SA1794::CHARBONND "shanghaied by the wind" >>>
�                  -< the answer might surprise you >-

�    Ask the Quebecois French that question
    
    Our esteemed leader, the mighty Brian, is himself from Baie Como
    in la Belle Province.  So are many of his cronies in the government
    from Qu�bec.
    
    Considering he's one of theirs, perhaps we should ask Brian if 
    he's a tyrant.
    
    

    fypi
    
    it took an hour before it dawned on me that "our esteemed leader, the
    mighty Brian"
    is a reference to Brian Mulroney (sp) Prime Minister of Canada
    
    
    				herb

    .184 says it pretty well.  The point of guns in American Homes isn't 
    so much to protect citizens from robbers as it is to KEEP THE GOV.
    FROM GETING OUT OF CONTROL.  Can't happen here?  I don't believe it,
    it CAN happen here... that is the Gov. gaining excessive control.
    
    Look at what the Gov. is doing now, with its endless Federal rules
    controls and regulations.  I dare say that a Gov. which faces an
    armed citizenry is going to move far more slowly and carefully about
    'overthrowing' the American People with State Police, FBI, etc.
    Perhaps I should have said dominating rather than overthrowing.
    
    I think we pay a TERRIBLE price by having armed citizens...just
    read the papers.  I do WONDER if the alternative (non armed citizens)
    is worse... like what, what could be worse?  A Government which is
    not of the people and by the people and not working FOR the people...
    its getting to be that way NOW in spite of the guns... imagine (if
    you can) what it might be like withOUT the check and balance of armed
    citizens.  
    
    We tend to think that our freedoms in the U.S. are assured by the
    Constitution and we take our freedom for granted.  Just a generation
    ago people were dying to maintain our freedom.  Now the dying seems
    to be on the streets of the U.S.  Unfortunately the dying is for NO
    detectable good that I can see. 
    
    My point is, don't be complacent because some of us live in the U.S.
    Also... the guns serve the purpose (IMO) of helping to hold the
    Government in check!
    in check.... 

    <imagine (if you can) what it might be like without the check and
    <balance of armed citizens.  
    
    Let's see ...
    Belgium?, Norway?, France?, Italy?, ...,Scotland?, Eire?, Canada?...
    
    And now imagine what it is like WITH the 'check and balance' of armed
    citizens
    Let's see ...
    Northern Ireland?, USofA, South Africa?

    Gee, the bad guys got better guns than the cops. What went wrong?
    Goverment control? Ever see a cop with a Mini-Mac? Or an AK-47? 
    Or a night scope on his hand cannon?? :)

    Or Nazi Germany, or Iraq.     Many of the countries you mention are not
    democracies... such as Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Scotland.
    
    You do have a good point.... I agree.  There ARE countries without
    armed citizens which work, I agree.
    
    One of the first things a Gov. planning on taking over does is
    disarm an armed citicenry... 'turn in your guns or face jail, or
    firing squad'.... Nazi Germany.  Thats how 'it' Gov. domination
    starts sometimes.  Next its control the kids education etc.  
    
    Yeah, I am older, 50 ish... I remember post WW II and the lessons
    it taught.  
    
    I am scared at the complacency and ignorance of much of the American
    Public regarding history and our guarantees (or lack of) our freedoms
    and way of life... the good parts not the bad.  
    
    Jeff

  May I suggest that the replies to the base note have been getting offtrack?
  The general issues of civilian possession of firearms, or countries being 
  invaded by other countries, are not what the base noter was asking about...
  and perhaps belong in other notes?

  Dennis

The question was (alternatives he listed have been deleted below for brevity):
================================================================================
Note 711.0               A noise in the living room ...              212 replies
MORO::BEELER_JE "HIGASHI NO KAZEAME!"                29 lines   2-JAN-1992 11:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's 2:00 AM.
    You're in bed, next to your wife (or significant other), or, alone.
    You hear a noise in the living room.
    Do you: 
	1. .......
	2. .......
	3. .......
	......
    Basically .. how do you react?
    Bubba

    re Nazi Germany and Irag 
    Does anybody object to categorizing Germany as central European?
    Certainly it has a peculiar tradition -The Prussians, Bismark, Kaiser
    Wilhelm, Hitler rather unlike its neighbors to the west and north.
    And, of course, Iraq is not western European. 
    
    The point I was making is that among western European countries (other
    than Spain and Portugal) and their descendants (USofA, Canada, South
    Africa) unarmed citizenry correlates rather better with individual
    safety than does an armed citizenry. I assume that is also true in
    Spain and Portugal* perhaps somebody can comment? Can anybody shed light
    on Australia and New Zealand in this regard? 
    
    *Why those countries founded/overrun by Spanish (Central/South America)
    and Portugese (Brazil) settlers have developed differently I do not
    know.
    					herb (54ish)

    	Just as a matter of interest, the British gummint considers
    Northern Ireland to be part of the UK.  So it is somewhat irrational to
    put Britain in one column and Northern Ireland in another one.  
    	Perhaps we shouldn't even include Britain among those enlightened
    democratic societies that don't have problems with guns and violence. 
    Even as late as 1921 they were having a major problem with one of their
    neighbors that didn't like the idea of being a colony.  If it weren't
    for those violent americans running guns in, the Brits might still have
    that colony.
    

    Britain is Socialist.  I think its a different comparison than the U.S.
    being armed.
    
    Moderator:  Yeah we digressed a bit... the original note was a noise
    in the living room.  Aren't we still discussing WHY Americans should
    or should not have guns?  Among the reasons in ADDITION to a noise in
    the living room is IMO protection from our own possible Gov. takeover.
    
    So there IMO TWO reasons to consider the guns appropriate.  Here I am
    afraid of our own Gov.  a sad story.  The founders of the U.S. I am
    told put the right to bear arms into the Constitution because they
    FORSAW the possiblility of an out of control Gov. and while we are
    at it we can protect our own homes from intruders too. 
    
    This is to say the least a complex issue.  There are pros and cons on
    both sides of the pro/con gun people.  We don't live in Switzerland
    where the crime rate is low and people apparently trust their Gov.
    we live here with those realities.
    
    Jeff

    <Here I am afraid of our own Gov.  a sad story.  The founders of the
    <U.S. I am told put the right to bear arms into the Constitution because
    <they FORSAW the possiblility of an out of control Gov. ...
    
    Then for God's sakes, please respond to the question raised in
    .175, and again in .183, and again in .216 namely...
    
    There are lots and lots of countries that are somewhat to rather to
    very like us EXCEPT for access to guns. Show us how some of those
    cousins (of Western Europe etc) of ours have suffered from the lack of
    guns with respect to protection from the government.
    
    Give us some examples of the countries (democratic or socialistic)
    most like us where denial of the right to bear arms has enabled a
    country/dictator/whatever to 'go out of control' and 'take over' the
    citizenry (whatever that means).
  	    				herb

VMSSG::NICHOLS "it ain't easy; being green"          17 lines  30-APR-1992 16:21
    
>    There are lots and lots of countries that are somewhat to rather to
>    very like us EXCEPT for access to guns. Show us how some of those
>    cousins (of Western Europe etc) of ours have suffered from the lack of
>    guns with respect to protection from the government.
>    
>    Give us some examples of the countries (democratic or socialistic)
>    most like us where denial of the right to bear arms has enabled a
>    country/dictator/whatever to 'go out of control' and 'take over' the
>    citizenry (whatever that means).
	
	I guess that NAZI (nationalist socialist) doesn't count because 
it was not a democracy.  In reality it was rather democratic before 
Hitler took power with elections and all that stuff.  After he took 
power the opposition became rather disinclined to exercise their 
freedom of speech.  Then he took over a few of the neighbors, and then 
he packed off 6,000,000 people to the gas chambers.
	I really don't know whether or not there was gun control in 
Germany before Hitler.  I get the strong impression that Jews at 
least weren't allowed to own guns.
	It seems likely to me that if someone like Hitler were to 
get into power in the US, someone would sooner or later take matters
into their own hands and eliminate the problem.  Fortunately even 
if there were complete gun control in this country, there would 
always be enough hidden guns to make things difficult.
					John

    c.f. .206

    re -.1
    	I take that to mean that you don't believe that gun control 
    in Germany in any way facilitated Hitler's rise to power and 
    his ability to perform atrocities.	
    	It's amazing how well the propaganda is working on the 
    denizens of the PRM.
    					John
    

    no what it means is that somebody who refers to my home state as
    People's Republic of Massachusetts is not going to get my respect, and
    his opinions are not going to get my attention.

    	To answer the original question, my normal response is to go to put
    the cat out, and since I am getting out of bed anyway I take my wife's
    water glass to refill.

    Herb, I can't give you a detailed historical analysis of exactly how
    countries with out guns available to the public have become
    dictatorships (such as Nazi Germany) as a result of those laws.
    
    I think the U.S. has very SERIOUS problems. Its complex to say the
    least.  I am not sure that the U.S. population should be armed.  In
    this string I am thinking over my position on it in writing.  I do
    see strong reasons both for and against an armed public.  I have
    related my reasons for it.  The reasons against it are obvious, lots
    of people are getting killed. 
    
    I am glad a prior noter gave us excerpts from that article. It was
    helpful.  Statistics do show trends... but at least in each noters
    case we are dealing with INDIVIDUAL situations.  I don't want to be
    one of the exceptions who is faced with a nutso midnight intruder
    who IS intent on hurting my family for its own sake to find myself
    with the phone line cut and essentially defenseless against some
    crack hyped 240 pounder.  Statistics or not, a gun is a great
    equalizer.
    
    Jeff 

    Comrade Herb, I, as a granite head, cow state, meadow muffin walker, have
    been called many things. Don't let it get to you. :) Just remember that
    the boarder close a half hour before sun down. :) 

    Signed
    Heir Rauh

>    There are lots and lots of countries that are somewhat to rather to
>    very like us EXCEPT for access to guns. 
    
    	No I don't think so. I do not believe that there are any countries
    	that are somewhat to rather very like to the US. Most have very
    	different demographics. Many have very different governments. Most
    	have been around far longer and have very different histories. 
    
    			Alfred

>    	No I don't think so. I do not believe that there are any countries
>    	that are somewhat to rather very like to the US. Most have very
>    	different demographics. Many have very different governments. 
    
But the real question is: how have the citizens of other countries
suffered through restricted access to guns?  Specifically, let's
say, the British (a people dear to my own heart)?  And if it's our
form of government that leads us to arm ourselves, does that speak
well of our form of democracy?

>      Most
>    	have been around far longer and have very different histories. 

So you're saying that Americans need guns because it's still a young
country?  Other countries have outgrown the need?  How old will America
be before we don't need armed citizens?  How long will we have to wait?  
Are we growing away from the need?

...Robert

    re .227
    
    Those are some important factors to consider and discuss. Perhaps there
    are others. Perhaps among those factors one can find the impetus (but
    not necessarily the justification) for arming our society. (but those
    were not the factors -i don't believe- that promted our right to bear
    arms entry in the Bill of Rights(?)
    We needed a civilian militia then during our revolutionary war. A
    'civilian militia' seems STILL important (c.f. South Central Los
    Angeles). We don't need guns in the hands of individual citizens to
    accomplish that.

    I think it is very important to try to understand just what prompts
    people to have guns. Arguing that it makes our citizens/society safer
    from each other, is not very compelling (although it MAY make some
    individual citizens safere. Nor is it very compelling to assert that
    your Ouzi  (say) or my .357 magnum (say) when multiplied by a bunch of
    million are any kind of a sensible defense against dictatorship. Indeed
    the events in Central and South America suggest that proliferation of
    guns (given by USA OR by USSR) are hardly a force for safety,
    stability, or peace.

    The almost primordial need to have guns, or to disarm are based on very
    fundamental needs, drives, and emotions that I don't even particularly
    understand  let alone know how to articulate. 
    
    But, I believe the arguments that 

    	1) our constitution authorizes weapons 
    	2) it makes our country safer from dictatorships
    	3) it makes our citizens safer from each other

    Are totally a postiori and are neither very introspective nor (in the
    case  of 2, & 3) even demonstrable and certainly not very insightful.

    I think it's likely that similar analytic(?) arguments can tear apart
    the 'rational' arguments in _favor_ of gun control. If those who are in
    favor of gun control are honest, I think they will perhaps allude to
    such things as sanity, perhaps a kind of selflessness etc. They might
    also argue that the loss of a little bit of (macho?) personal freedom
    is a small price to pay for a savings of lives (whose 'proof' is far
    from clear). These too are deeply and profoundly based and quite
    independent of much rational thought. But may possibly benefit from a
    somewhat more altruistic (although possibly fuzzy headed) motivation.
    
    				herb

    Herb,
    	Are they censoring the news in the PRM?  It seems that in the minor
    civil war in Los Angeles (California, USA) there have been at least 14
    people in the past few days that might have benefitted greatly from the
    ability to defend themselves.  All you seem to have heard about is the
    official militia/national guard putting down some people who don't
    think that their government is very benevolent or representative. 
    I guess that if you want people to be kept in their place, and if you
    want the police and others in authority to be judged differently from
    the riff-raff, then things are just fine.
    	Some of us would like to be able to defend ourselves against a
    government gone mad.  Some of us can't understand how a travesty like
    the one in LA could occur.  Others seem to think that things are just
    fine.  
    						John
    

    Also Herb,
    	You might try digging up a copy of the federalist papers.  The
    second ammendment was written precisely to put weapons into private
    hands.  One version was going to mandate that each citizen own a
    personal weapon.  They rejected that one because they didn't want to
    force consciencious objectors to bear arms.
    					John
    

    The mere PRESENCE of guns in private hands, IMO would tend to make
    an out-of-control Gov. which is considering violent means to control
    the general population think hard before tying to overthrow the
    population.  Note that in this example that the guns havn't EVEN
    been USED. 
    
    Back to the living room:  The LAST thing I would do is seek a
    confrontation with someone breaking in downstairs.  IF they came
    up the stairs in the middle of the night it would be a different
    situation. Not that I would seek a confrontation then but I might
    have little choice.  Given half a chance my family and I would run.
    If not possible to run then people might read about it in the
    papers.  
    
    Someone said in an earlier note something to the effect that
    professional burglars have adjusted the slight annoyance of more
    armed homeowners.  I wonder if that statement is true.  No matter
    how 'professional' a robber is a scared person with a gun can kill
    the robber just as dead as the robber can the scared person. 
    Statistics say the gun is more of a risk to the homeowner than being
    unarmed in a confrontation.  As I said before that is statistically
    speaking, not in certain specific individual cases.
    
    IMO the biggest advantage the robber has is that he probably knows what
    he is going to do if confronted by an irate homeowner.  The homeowner
    would think more theoretically about the hypothetical situation and
    is (I think) less likely to use the gun than the robber would be.
    Pause and you can be dead... that pause is a BIG advantage.
    
    Down the stairs comes the armed homeowner...'WHO'S THERE, WHO'S THERE'?
    with flashlight beaming around.  The hiding robber jumps out or shoots
    at the light from his dark hiding place... 
    
    Of course some homeowners might go about it in FAR smarter ways than
    that.
    
    
    

    re .232
    	Don't believe the statistics.  You can get one set of statistics
    from the pro gun control people and another from the anti gun control
    people.  They come, not surprisingly, to opposite conclusions.  
    	It is interesting that the pro gun control people use "interesting"
    statistics.  One of their favorites it to quote some number of
    "children" killed by firearms in a year.  They unlike any other group
    define children to be under 19 rather than 18 or 16 or any of the more
    common definitions.  The obvious intent is to group inner city gang
    killings in with five year olds who get their hands on guns.  In this
    instance I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of the number that
    they quote is 18 year olds.  Most likely they are even including Desert
    storm casualties who were 17 or 18 at the time.
    					John
    

>>      Most
>>    	have been around far longer and have very different histories. 
>
>So you're saying that Americans need guns because it's still a young
>country? 

	Where did you get that from? I was only saying that the different
	history keeps those other places from being the same or similar to
	the US.

			Alfred

    and when you reply with that kind of nonsense it becomes clear to me
    that you have no interest in communicating but simply in making vacuous
    points

    re .235
    Herb,
    	Alfred appears to be trying to make a point, which in his mind is
    valid.  If you don't agree you might try to refute his contention. 
    Calling it nonsense and vacuous isn't likely to convince any of the
    readers who are undecided on the subject.  It really is the equivalent
    of saying "I disagree, but my disagreement is emotional not rational."
    					John
    

    Professor Kleck's paper is titled "Crime Control Through the Private
    Use of Armed Force" and is available for $3.00 from the Second
    Amendment Foundation, James Madison Building, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place,
    Bellevue, WA 98005.
    
    Kleck cites over 50 references, e.g. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    U.S. FBI, U.S. Library of Congress.
    
    This is a research paper, not an opinion paper.  It contains only
    facts.  It's an eye-opener and validates what everyone with even a hint
    of common sense has known all along regarding armed self-defense.
    
    - craig