View Single Post
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Han Han is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,297
Default OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Han wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in
news:4P%Xk.1638$us6.1484 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

Subject

As this is being typed the news is coming in that gunman have
entered a Toys-R-Us store in Palm Desert, Ca (about 100 miles east
of downtown L/A), and are shooting up the place.

Too early for casualty reports.

The mess in India continues.

What the hell is this world coming to?

Lew


I believe that in order to be allowed to have a firearm, one should
have to pass examinations in firearm safety,

Kind of like the literacy tests in the south?


No, ability to use the instrument desired in a manner that is safe to the
user and others. I have no objection to people having guns if they are
used and stored in a safe manner. Well, I still think it would be a
little too easy for an "accident", but US law says apparently that you
are allowed a firearm.

mental stability, and have never
been convicted of any crime or tresspass with violent overtones,
including sale of a firearm to unauthorized person(s).


It's already illegal for anyone who has been judged incompetent, been
convicted of a felony (including sale of a firearm to unauthorized
persons) to possess a firearm.


Anyone who fails
any such exam should be entered onto a blacklist.


Have you heard of the National Instant Background Check? Before
purchasing a firearm, that database is consulted and if any of the
conditions stated above, plus a few more such as outstanding
restraining orders, arrest (not necessarily conviction) for domestic
violence, and several others are encountered, the sale is refused.


Yes, I have heard of the NIBC. Also, that it is easily circumvented in
some states/cases. That's why I think a license is a good thing.

The right to bear arms should not be extended to those not
qualifying.


Wouldn't it be better if California had more liberal carry laws in
which the gunmen (already committing an illegal act) didn't know who
might be armed and put a stop to their mayhem?


No, I don't think we should have multiple participants in a shootout.
This case is a good example. Do you really want 10 other people to pull
out handguns and start shooting at each other in a crowded department
store?

Hey, my opinions are mine!!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid