Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:23:07 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:39:05 -0400, willshak
wrote:

I've read through this whole thread and I still don't know what everyone
is talking about.
None of my guns have nuts. I checked them all. There are screws, but
they are used to attach parts together without nuts. The guns have
threaded holes to accept the screws in those parts.

You need bigger guns. Plenty of guns have nuts, some with big nuts.

How else would you get little guns?

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 13, 7:12*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:58 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:36:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

And who is proposing to allow "everyone" to have
a gun? * You're obviously ignorant of all the gun laws
we already have, both at the federal and state level
Why is it that those that know the least always know
what the rest of us need?

This is how progressive liberals (feral socialist / marxist) think.
They believe they are superior thinkers and conservatives can't think
for themselves. They know what is best for you and the government
should provide you with all you need.

When their ideas fail, they move onto the next thing you need.

Spit!

A bit harsh don't you think? * *Why are the gun advocates so worked
up? * I think its clear to me, based on the number of killings, there
needs to be better gun laws. *And I'm tired of the labels that you por
gun people like to use on me like dem, lib, etc... . *I speak for
myself and I could careless if one of these groups agree or disagree
with me. *I can imagine if I said I was a jew, muslim, black, etc..
the slurs that would come my way just because I believe in some form
of gun control or regulation or whatever you want to label my opinion.
Yeah some are right, there is racism in this topic. * I laugh at all
the so called pro gun people who claim to know their rights. * What
about the rights of the majority of people who do not have a gun?

Doug-

How old are you? Got any life experince?

Go to the CDC or FBI websites and research the data.......

Gun deaths represent a miniscule number of yearly deaths.
The vast majority are suicide.
The next largest group is homicide (by a person known to the victim)

Accidental deaths are a very small % of the total.

Homicide by a stranger is a small % as well.

You're wanting to apply a legislative solution to something that
approaches a statistical anomaly.

If you are fearful of being killed by gunshot
1) Don't commit suicide
2) Don't associate with violent people (esp criminals & lowlifes)
3) Don't stay out late.
4) Don't be careless with a gun

that should take of most fatal gunshots

America is big place, lots of people, lots of stuff happens ....

Make sure you are analyzing the situation correctly,
especially before you spout unsound suggestions in AHR
there are lots of guys here with lots of experience and sound
thinking.

cheers
Bob

Gun Nuts
 

David Kaye wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for
individual citizens to own guns.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.

Are these trolls paid by the anti-gunner lobby to post **** like this?

How could someone be so stupid? Stupid for pay is my guess.

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 13, 10:29*am, "Doug" wrote:

HUGE SNIP

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths.

Doug-

You are entering into a discussion / debate about a topic that you
don't command the basics?

And you wonder why people are giving you a hard time?

It's about facts / data not "feelings".

Another reason you're getting hammered...... you suggest "laws" or
policy without considering the "knock on" effects.

Think it's cool to be unarmed? Own a house?

Put this sign on your front lawn

"Gun free home".

cheers
Bob

Gun Nuts
 

DD_BobK wrote:

Doug-

How old are you? Got any life experince?

Go to the CDC or FBI websites and research the data.......

Gun deaths represent a miniscule number of yearly deaths.
The vast majority are suicide.
The next largest group is homicide (by a person known to the victim)

Accidental deaths are a very small % of the total.

Homicide by a stranger is a small % as well.

You're wanting to apply a legislative solution to something that
approaches a statistical anomaly.

If you are fearful of being killed by gunshot
1) Don't commit suicide
2) Don't associate with violent people (esp criminals & lowlifes)
3) Don't stay out late.
4) Don't be careless with a gun

that should take of most fatal gunshots

America is big place, lots of people, lots of stuff happens ....

Make sure you are analyzing the situation correctly,
especially before you spout unsound suggestions in AHR
there are lots of guys here with lots of experience and sound
thinking.


He's operating under the life mission that all preventable deaths are an
outrage and no effort should be spared in reducing the number.

My view is that your #2 above - killings involving gang members, low-lifes,
gremlins, squints, etc. - should be encouraged. That will never happen, of
course, but we CAN stay out of the way of the natural culling process.

Gun Nuts
 

On 14 Aug 2012 20:58:44 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-08-14, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:18:13 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I'd rather be called a gun nut, than be called a violence victim.

I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

I'd rather be applying iodine to a deep cut that reading this
tripe.

Only a fool would continue to read what bothers him so, NutJob. Oh, that's
right...

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:46:46 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK wrote:

On Aug 13, 7:12*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:54:58 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:36:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

And who is proposing to allow "everyone" to have
a gun? * You're obviously ignorant of all the gun laws
we already have, both at the federal and state level
Why is it that those that know the least always know
what the rest of us need?

This is how progressive liberals (feral socialist / marxist) think.
They believe they are superior thinkers and conservatives can't think
for themselves. They know what is best for you and the government
should provide you with all you need.

When their ideas fail, they move onto the next thing you need.

Spit!

A bit harsh don't you think? * *Why are the gun advocates so worked
up? * I think its clear to me, based on the number of killings, there
needs to be better gun laws. *And I'm tired of the labels that you por
gun people like to use on me like dem, lib, etc... . *I speak for
myself and I could careless if one of these groups agree or disagree
with me. *I can imagine if I said I was a jew, muslim, black, etc..
the slurs that would come my way just because I believe in some form
of gun control or regulation or whatever you want to label my opinion.
Yeah some are right, there is racism in this topic. * I laugh at all
the so called pro gun people who claim to know their rights. * What
about the rights of the majority of people who do not have a gun?

Doug-

How old are you? Got any life experince?

Go to the CDC or FBI websites and research the data.......

Forget it. He has already said that he has no interest in learning the facts
of the matter. He's only interested in grabbing guns. His mind is made up.

Gun deaths represent a miniscule number of yearly deaths.
The vast majority are suicide.
The next largest group is homicide (by a person known to the victim)

Accidental deaths are a very small % of the total.

Homicide by a stranger is a small % as well.

You're wasting your time.

You're wanting to apply a legislative solution to something that
approaches a statistical anomaly.

If you are fearful of being killed by gunshot
1) Don't commit suicide
2) Don't associate with violent people (esp criminals & lowlifes)
3) Don't stay out late.
4) Don't be careless with a gun

that should take of most fatal gunshots

America is big place, lots of people, lots of stuff happens ....

Make sure you are analyzing the situation correctly,
especially before you spout unsound suggestions in AHR
there are lots of guys here with lots of experience and sound
thinking.

cheers
Bob

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:11:41 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

DD_BobK wrote:

Doug-

How old are you? Got any life experince?

Go to the CDC or FBI websites and research the data.......

Gun deaths represent a miniscule number of yearly deaths.
The vast majority are suicide.
The next largest group is homicide (by a person known to the victim)

Accidental deaths are a very small % of the total.

Homicide by a stranger is a small % as well.

You're wanting to apply a legislative solution to something that
approaches a statistical anomaly.

If you are fearful of being killed by gunshot
1) Don't commit suicide
2) Don't associate with violent people (esp criminals & lowlifes)
3) Don't stay out late.
4) Don't be careless with a gun

that should take of most fatal gunshots

America is big place, lots of people, lots of stuff happens ....

Make sure you are analyzing the situation correctly,
especially before you spout unsound suggestions in AHR
there are lots of guys here with lots of experience and sound
thinking.


He's operating under the life mission that all preventable deaths are an
outrage and no effort should be spared in reducing the number.

My view is that your #2 above - killings involving gang members, low-lifes,
gremlins, squints, etc. - should be encouraged. That will never happen, of
course, but we CAN stay out of the way of the natural culling process.

Meanwhile arm enough law-abiding people to make sure that the above groups
leave those not in the above groups alone, including granny.

Gun Nuts
 

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

Sure. They prefer gun free victim zones.

Did I win?

bingo! we have a winner

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK wrote:

On Aug 13, 10:29*am, "Doug" wrote:

HUGE SNIP

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths.

Doug-

You are entering into a discussion / debate about a topic that you
don't command the basics?

And you wonder why people are giving you a hard time?

It's about facts / data not "feelings".

Another reason you're getting hammered...... you suggest "laws" or
policy without considering the "knock on" effects.

Think it's cool to be unarmed? Own a house?

Put this sign on your front lawn

"Gun free home".

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should have to put a
sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those who do not, also have to
place a sign stating such. Let the do-bads vote.

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:52:10 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

David Kaye wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution makes
VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court,
and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment refers
to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right for
individual citizens to own guns.

If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.

Are these trolls paid by the anti-gunner lobby to post **** like this?

With logic like this, perhaps it's psi-ops by the NRA.

How could someone be so stupid? Stupid for pay is my guess.

Occupiers, is my guess. No one would actually pay someone that stupid.

Gun Nuts
 

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Small technical point. The militia arms are typically select fire, now days.
Semi, or full auto. Those are the protected ones.

$200 tax to the BATF and three months waiting on paperwork and anyone
legally allowed to own a firearm can buy a class 3 weapon. Have a
machine gun if you want, they aint cheap though.

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:00:01 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 13, 1:29*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:06 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course). *And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.

As was already pointed out, that is an asinine approach to a solution. You
are disarming responsible citizens before disarming criminals. Once the
criminals are aware citizens are disarmed, expect the crime to increase as
well as illegal gun population.

I won't call you stupid, but that is a very ignorant suggestion.

-BTW, more people are killed by cars than guns every year. Should we outlaw
cars?

-More people are killed from alcohol related causes more than gun deaths.Ban
alcohol.

-More people are killed by doctors than guns. In fact, *an average of
120,000 accidental deaths are caused by doctors every year and 1,500
accidental deaths by guns. Ban doctors.

-24 out of 25 *gun owners have used their weapon for self defense.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill
at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).And
readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings
involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error
rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

-States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%,
rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%

-Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens
can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or
without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet
for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest
states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award.

Stop being an uneducated sheep. Increasing your knowledge about guns instead
of following the rest of the ignorant naysayers will help you understand the
truth and eliminate the ignorance of what you think are solutions.

Off topic a little but whether I change my opinion or not, you are the
first reply to actually sound worthy of me "trying" to change my
opinion. *Now I didn't say I would but at least you sounded calm in
trying to discuss this topic and I for what it's worth (probably not
much) praise you for that.

Now back on topic .... * I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree.

See, this is why some of us get annoyed. WTF? You'd
go after the LEGAL gun owners first? And you think
that what you do to the LEGAL gun owners is going
to spread out to the illegal gun owners? Like the
gang bangers give a rat's ass that the responsible
gun owners have more laws to comply with?
Can you possibly be that dumb?



And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing.

Yes, following that logic we should take all the
innocent people and use them to work out the kinks
in the prison system.




No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first.

Yeah, because you can't figure out how to fix the
real problem, screw someone else. Makes a lot of
sense.



*Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole.

And for exactly what purpose do you need to account and
find for all the guns as a whole? You'd have a list of legal
gun owners. Now tell us how the hell that would have prevented
say the Colorado shooting. As far as anyone knew, except
perhaps his psychiatrist, he was just as entitled to have a
gun as anyone else.



*As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first.

It's only debtable if you're an idiot.


*I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.

Sure, it doesn't have to be *your* way, as long as
someone goes after legal gun owners in some
way, right?



As I keep repeating myself, I am not again most people having guns as
long as they are better accounted for.

And tell us again how the better accounting for is
going to prevent crime?



*I do admit I do not want
everyone to have a gun because I don't think everyone is fit to be
responsible for one.

Who, a stunning admission. Who would have thought that?



It sounds like, most who disagree with me here
who have a gun are responsible but of course I am guessing. *And I
refuse to quote laws because even if they are worded well (which I
have some doubts), they aren't working or being enforced in my
opinion.

You refuse to quote any laws because you don't know
anything about all the laws that are already out there
and instead prefer to remain an ignoramus. Which is
fine. But then don't be bitching about what to do, and
how the solution is to go after the legal gun owners,
when you admit you're clueless.

And then you wonder why some of us get ****ed?



And yes this is my opinion so that's subject to different
opinions of course.

Actually your opinion is not subject to different opinions.



One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths. * The problem is more
people depend on cars for different reasons than guns in everyday
life. *I kinda like guns being treated like cars for regulation
purposes like renewal of licenses, registration, etc... . * *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And this from the guy that admits he doesn't even have
a grasp of the current gun laws.


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?

You're close. No accounting of guns *will* help society.

Tell me how.

Several orders of magnitude more people are helped by guns than are harmed by
them.


You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

Gun Nuts
 

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

Sure. They prefer gun free victim zones.

Did I win?

To the best of my knowledge, which is, admittedly, somewhat porous, in
modern times there have been only TWO mass murders in areas that were NOT
gun-free zones. The two are the shooting in the parking lot at the Gabby
Giffords event and the recent melee at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.

I'm actually not sure about the Sikh Temple; Wisconsin concealed carry laws
leave it up to private property owners, and this would include the temple,
to bar concealed handguns. If a private entity wants to prohibit concealed
carry, all it needs to do is post an appropriate sign.

I do not know whether the Sikh temple involved posted such a sign. From what
I DO know about Sikhs, while they promote peace, they carry ceremonial
daggers just in case. I doubt their building was posted as a no-guns site.

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Gun Nuts
 

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:14:50 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help
society? Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The
laws only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?



I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

there's only ONE way to revise the Second Amendment,
and it's NOT by enacting unconstitutional laws and relying on the expensive
and highly risky legal court system to prevent it from being overturned.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?

You haven't even stated why gun laws need revising, moron. I would
agree, but I don't think you have abolishing them, in mind.

I'd favor a 10 year sunset provision on most laws,like the Assault Weapon
Ban had. Since the AWB proved to be ineffective at it's stated
goals(besides being unconstitutional),it was rightfully allowed to expire.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

many car deaths are actually negligent homicide.
they just are not prosecuted as such,due to Political Correctness.

There are accidental gun deaths, just as there are intentional
automobile deaths. So? How many people are saved by guns? Cars?




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Gun Nuts
 

G. Morgan wrote in
:

David Kaye wrote:

The gun nuts claim to follow the Constitution, but the Constitution
makes VERY CLEAR that the laws are subject to interpretation by the
Supreme Court, and it is THEIR DECISION as to what a particular clause
actually means.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 2nd Amendment
refers to regulating a MILITIA, and that it does not confer ANY right
for individual citizens to own guns.

WRONG. SCOTUS has ruled correctly that the RKBA is an individual right,not
dependent on militia service or membership.
there is NO language in the 2nd that restricts the RKBA to militias,well-
regulated or not.
the right to keep and bear arms is "of the People",NOT "of a militia".


If you don't recognize the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the
Constitution, then YOU ARE UNAMERICAN. Simple as that.

Are these trolls paid by the anti-gunner lobby to post **** like this?

How could someone be so stupid? Stupid for pay is my guess.




it's WEAPONS-GRADE Stupid.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Gun Nuts
 

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 13, 10:29*am, "Doug" wrote:

HUGE SNIP

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths.

Doug-

You are entering into a discussion / debate about a topic that you
don't command the basics?

And you wonder why people are giving you a hard time?

It's about facts / data not "feelings".

Another reason you're getting hammered...... you suggest "laws" or
policy without considering the "knock on" effects.

Think it's cool to be unarmed? Own a house?

Put this sign on your front lawn

"Gun free home".

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should have
to put a sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those who do
not, also have to place a sign stating such. Let the do-bads vote.


I'd rather not advertise the presence of valuables in my home.
Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Gun Nuts
 

G. Morgan wrote in
:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Small technical point. The militia arms are typically select fire, now
days. Semi, or full auto. Those are the protected ones.

$200 tax to the BATF and three months waiting on paperwork and anyone
legally allowed to own a firearm can buy a class 3 weapon. Have a
machine gun if you want, they aint cheap though.

and supplies are VERY restricted,unlawfully.
you can ONLY buy/transfer NFA-registered arms,and those are limited to what
was registered before May 1986. No new automatic weapons can be sold
to civilians. Another infringement.

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx



Tech point;
today,most assault rifles omit the full-auto position and only have semi-
auto or 3 round burst.
full-auto wastes ammo and takes away control of your aim.

Political;
I object to having to pay a tax to exercise a Constitutional right,and
object to F-Troop having the right to inspect my premises at any time they
like.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 15, 1:45*am, G. Morgan wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Small technical point. The militia arms are typically select fire, now days.
Semi, or full auto. Those are the protected ones.

$200 tax to the BATF and three months waiting on paperwork and anyone
legally allowed to own a firearm can buy a class 3 weapon. *Have a
machine gun if you want, they aint cheap though.

http://www.impactguns.com/machine-guns.aspx

That's incorrect. Not anyone. You'd have to live in one
of the states that ALLOW it. And then, in addition to
the federal requirements that are on that link, you would
have to comply with the state specific requirements,
which could be difficult to meet.
And part of the federal process requires fingerprinting,
background check and approval of the chief of police
in your municipality.

I'm sitting here in NJ and while legally allowed to own
some guns, I cannot buy or possess a fully automatic
weapon. As a further example, carry permits
are theoretically allowed in NJ too. But similar to
the federal requirement outlined above, to get the permit
you need to get a judge to OK it. Unless you have
a damned good reason or know the judge, from a
practical standpoint, it's impossible for someone like
me to do so.

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 14, 3:26*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:48:56 -0400, "





wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:14:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. * If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how.

the laws are working, but criminals don't care what the laws are,
that's why they are criminals
You can pass all the laws you want, but criminals don't care. The laws
only effect LAW ABIDING citizens.
Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

I don't think some of the laws are working for different reasons. I'm
not saying criminal laws don't need revising but gun laws need it too.

You haven't even stated why gun laws need revising, moron. *I would agree, but
I don't think you have abolishing them, in mind.

Also I got thinking about how people compare # of car deaths to gun
deaths. *I think a lot of car deaths are due to accidents but can we
say the same thing about gun deaths?

There are accidental gun deaths, just as there are intentional automobile
deaths. *So? How many people are saved by guns? *Cars?

Intentional auto deaths? * Hmmm..... * *Even if true, you think the
numbers are equal ? * And why don't you stop with "stupid" and "moron"
and just talk straight or is that beyond your IQ level?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're the clown that's obviously totally ignorant of the
existing situation regarding guns, ie laws, what's legal, what's
not, who's getting killed with guns, how, etc
You're the one, coming from this base of ignorance
that said you wanted to start with new
laws effecting LEGAL gun owners first, and only later
work on the illegal use of guns.

That would be like me proposing how to reform the
rules of running the Indy 500.

And you're bringing up IQ?

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:41:08 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

Sure. They prefer gun free victim zones.

Did I win?

To the best of my knowledge, which is, admittedly, somewhat porous, in
modern times there have been only TWO mass murders in areas that were NOT
gun-free zones. The two are the shooting in the parking lot at the Gabby
Giffords event and the recent melee at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin.

I'm actually not sure about the Sikh Temple; Wisconsin concealed carry laws
leave it up to private property owners, and this would include the temple,
to bar concealed handguns. If a private entity wants to prohibit concealed
carry, all it needs to do is post an appropriate sign.

I do not know whether the Sikh temple involved posted such a sign. From what
I DO know about Sikhs, while they promote peace, they carry ceremonial
daggers just in case. I doubt their building was posted as a no-guns site.


"...The president of the Sikh temple in Wisconsin where six members
were killed tried to stop the gunman before he was gunned down, his
son says.

Amardeep Kaleka told WTMJ, CNN affiliate in Milwaukee, that his
father, Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65, used the ceremonial dagger all Sikhs
carry."

Read mo
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/07/Sikh-temple-president-tried-to-stop-gunman/UPI-20141344324600/#ixzz23dQ2Gg2L

--

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:36:17 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:04:43 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 13, 10:29*am, "Doug" wrote:

HUGE SNIP

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths.

Doug-

You are entering into a discussion / debate about a topic that you
don't command the basics?

And you wonder why people are giving you a hard time?

It's about facts / data not "feelings".

Another reason you're getting hammered...... you suggest "laws" or
policy without considering the "knock on" effects.

Think it's cool to be unarmed? Own a house?

Put this sign on your front lawn

"Gun free home".

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should have
to put a sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those who do
not, also have to place a sign stating such. Let the do-bads vote.


I'd rather not advertise the presence of valuables in my home.
Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

....just offering an idea in the spirit of "compromise". You know, lefties
like that.

Gun Nuts
 

Gun Nuts
 

Jim Yanik wrote:

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should have
to put a sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those who do
not, also have to place a sign stating such. Let the do-bads vote.


I'd rather not advertise the presence of valuables in my home.
Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign then,
while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the doorbell...

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:14:02 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should have
to put a sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those who do
not, also have to place a sign stating such. Let the do-bads vote.


I'd rather not advertise the presence of valuables in my home.
Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign then,
while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the doorbell...

But, but, that would be *dishonest*!

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:51:21 -0400, "
wrote:

Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign then,
while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the doorbell...

But, but, that would be *dishonest*!

Just post a sign in your yard: "My neighbor, next door is unarmed"
--

Gun Nuts
 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:36:57 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:14:24 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Prison statitics show that 99% of inmates/criminals support gun
control. Can you guess why?

Sure. They prefer gun free victim zones.

Did I win?

bingo! we have a winner


I cheated. I'm a retired Penologist. G

The answer is still correct, though.
--

Gun Nuts
 

Gun Nuts
 

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:51:21 -0400, "
wrote:

Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign
then, while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the
doorbell...

But, but, that would be *dishonest*!

Just post a sign in your yard: "My neighbor, next door is unarmed"

I like the one that says " This house is protect by a shotgun 4 days a
week. Guess which 4?"

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

Gun Nuts
 

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:28:34 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:51:21 -0400, "
wrote:

Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign
then, while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the
doorbell...

But, but, that would be *dishonest*!

Just post a sign in your yard: "My neighbor, next door is unarmed"

I like the one that says " This house is protect by a shotgun 4 days a
week. Guess which 4?"

"ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?"

Gun Nuts
 

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:14:02 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Perhaps we can compromise, here. Everyone who owns guns should
have to put a sign out front declaring that they are armed. Those
who do not, also have to place a sign stating such. Let the
do-bads vote.


I'd rather not advertise the presence of valuables in my home.
Let the anti-gun folks post no-guns signs in their yards.

You could have some fun by posting a "No guns in this house" sign
then, while armed with old double-barreled Betsy, not answer the
doorbell...

sorry,NOT my idea of "fun".

But, but, that would be *dishonest*!


I don't go looking for trouble,I'm just ready if it finds me.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 13, 11:00*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:29 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:06 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course). And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.

As was already pointed out, that is an asinine approach to a solution.. You
are disarming responsible citizens before disarming criminals. Once the
criminals are aware citizens are disarmed, expect the crime to increase as
well as illegal gun population.

I won't call you stupid, but that is a very ignorant suggestion.

-BTW, more people are killed by cars than guns every year. Should we outlaw
cars?

-More people are killed from alcohol related causes more than gun deaths.Ban
alcohol.

-More people are killed by doctors than guns. In fact, an average of
120,000 accidental deaths are caused by doctors every year and 1,500
accidental deaths by guns. Ban doctors.

-24 out of 25 gun owners have used their weapon for self defense.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill
at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).And
readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings
involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error
rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

-States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%,
rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%

-Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens
can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or
without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet
for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest
states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award.

Stop being an uneducated sheep. Increasing your knowledge about guns instead
of following the rest of the ignorant naysayers will help you understand the
truth and eliminate the ignorance of what you think are solutions.

Off topic a little but whether I change my opinion or not, you are the
first reply to actually sound worthy of me "trying" to change my
opinion. Now I didn't say I would but at least you sounded calm in
trying to discuss this topic and I for what it's worth (probably not
much) praise you for that.

Now back on topic .... I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree.

See, this is why some of us get annoyed. *WTF? *You'd
go after the LEGAL gun owners first? *And you think
that what you do to the LEGAL gun owners is going
to spread out to the illegal gun owners? *Like the
gang bangers give a rat's ass that the responsible
gun owners have more laws to comply with?
Can you possibly be that dumb?

And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing.

Yes, following that logic we should take all the
innocent people and use them to work out the kinks
in the prison system.

No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first.

Yeah, because you can't figure out how to fix the
real problem, screw someone else. *Makes a lot of
sense.

Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole.

And for exactly what purpose do you need to account and
find for all the guns as a whole? * You'd have a list of legal
gun owners. *Now tell us how the hell that would have prevented
say the Colorado shooting. *As far as anyone knew, except
perhaps his psychiatrist, he was just as entitled to have a
gun as anyone else.

As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first.

It's only debtable if you're an idiot.

I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.

Sure, it doesn't have to be *your* way, as long as
someone goes after legal gun owners in some
way, right?

As I keep repeating myself, I am not again most people having guns as
long as they are better accounted for.

And tell us again how the better accounting for is
going to prevent crime?

I do admit I do not want
everyone to have a gun because I don't think everyone is fit to be
responsible for one.

Who, a stunning admission. *Who would have thought that?

It sounds like, most who disagree with me here
who have a gun are responsible but of course I am guessing. And I
refuse to quote laws because even if they are worded well (which I
have some doubts), they aren't working or being enforced in my
opinion.

You refuse to quote any laws because you don't know
anything about all the laws that are already out there
and instead prefer to remain an ignoramus. *Which is
fine. *But then don't be bitching about what to do, and
how the solution is to go after the legal gun owners,
when you admit you're clueless.

And then you wonder why some of us get ****ed?

And yes this is my opinion so that's subject to different
opinions of course.

Actually your opinion is not subject to different opinions.

One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths. The problem is more
people depend on cars for different reasons than guns in everyday
life. I kinda like guns being treated like cars for regulation
purposes like renewal of licenses, registration, etc... . - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And this from the guy that admits he doesn't even have
a grasp of the current gun laws.

You miss my point... the laws aren't working or they're not written
yet. * If I use your logic, no accounting of guns will help society?
Tell me how. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not that anyone is missing your point. It's that
you don't have a point. And my logic does not say
that no accounting of guns will help society. I never
said that or anything that could be interpreted that
way. What I said was:

A - You obviously are clueless regarding existing
gun laws, crimes committed with guns, crimes
prevented with guns, etc

B - Yet given the above, you're here demanding more
regulation of guns.

C - And inexplicably, you want to start with more
laws for LEGAL gun owners first. Not the criminals
that are committing crimes using illegal weapons.
You actually want to start with the legal gun owners.

The last part, IMO, qualifies you as the village idiot.

Gun Nuts
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

Gun Nuts
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.

Gun Nuts
 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.


Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".


Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.


:-)

At least we agree, once again.


How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.

Gun Nuts
 

On Aug 16, 2:41*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:08:00 -0400, "





wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:14:34 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:48:29 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:48:22 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:21:45 -0400, "
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:11:08 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:02:54 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:28:09 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:46:25 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:07:30 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:50:52 -0400, "
wrote:
snip

You're still an idiot.

Yeah ... LOL

Only a moron laughs at being an idiot.

You're IQ is showing.

Sorry Dilbert, you've already claimed position of "clapper of the bell curve".

Whatever.

I'm glad you finally agree.

Didn't say that.

You did but you never know what you say; too stupid.

:-)

At least we agree, once again.

How could I agree, if by your words, I'm stupid ? * Guess I'm too
stupid to understand that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'd say when you clearly know nothing about current
gun laws and you propose passing more laws,
specifically targeting LEGAL gun owners rather than
the criminals using illegal guns, that qualifies you as
too stupid to understand just about anything.

It's like a customer driving in to a mechanic with
a car with a flat tire and the mechanic going to work
on the radio.

Gun Nuts
 

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:01:06 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:32:24 -0400, "Meanie" wrote:

I do realize this but we have to start somewhere and build upon it.
Whether we start with legal or illegal may be a worthy discussion but
I'm of the opinion to start with the legal ones first and then spread
out the enforcment to the illegal (which I think will be harder of
course). And I lived in NYC once for many years so I'm aware of guns,
legal and illegal being all around me as well as drugs and other
weapons.

As was already pointed out, that is an asinine approach to a solution. You
are disarming responsible citizens before disarming criminals. Once the
criminals are aware citizens are disarmed, expect the crime to increase as
well as illegal gun population.

I won't call you stupid, but that is a very ignorant suggestion.

-BTW, more people are killed by cars than guns every year. Should we
outlaw
cars?

-More people are killed from alcohol related causes more than gun
deaths.Ban
alcohol.

-More people are killed by doctors than guns. In fact, an average of
120,000 accidental deaths are caused by doctors every year and 1,500
accidental deaths by guns. Ban doctors.

-24 out of 25 gun owners have used their weapon for self defense.

-Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and
kill
at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to
606).And
readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings
involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The
'error
rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as
high.

-States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by
8.5%,
rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%

-Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont,
citizens
can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee...
or
without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And
yet
for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest
states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State
Award.

Stop being an uneducated sheep. Increasing your knowledge about guns
instead
of following the rest of the ignorant naysayers will help you understand
the
truth and eliminate the ignorance of what you think are solutions.



Off topic a little but whether I change my opinion or not, you are the
first reply to actually sound worthy of me "trying" to change my
opinion. Now I didn't say I would but at least you sounded calm in
trying to discuss this topic and I for what it's worth (probably not
much) praise you for that.


3 really good sites for you to study and read through
guncite.com
gunfacts.info
jpfo.org
There's more but if you follow up their references, your education on the
subject will be high enough to make you start reading more serious
literature on the subject

Now back on topic .... I debated myself whether it's wise to go
after the legal or illegal guns first but I felt it's easier to do the
legal ones which might spread out over to the illegal ones to a small
degree. And by doing this, might work out the kinks in so doing. No
doubt the illegal guns will be harder to find or control so I felt the
legal ones should be first. Yeah, this might sound like a penalty for
a legal gun but my purpose is for a strategy of finding or accounting
for guns as a whole. As I said, it's a debatable issue which to go
for first. I don't claim my way is the only way to go after guns.


What's so smart chasing after the law-abiding and limiting their rights and
ability to defend themselves in the hope that magically criminals will be
motivated to not commit crime
That's as intelligent as making purchasing cars more difficult in the hope
of cutting down on drunk drivers

HELLO ???



As I keep repeating myself, I am not again most people having guns as
long as they are better accounted for. I do admit I do not want
everyone to have a gun because I don't think everyone is fit to be
responsible for one. It sounds like, most who disagree with me here
who have a gun are responsible but of course I am guessing. And I
refuse to quote laws because even if they are worded well (which I
have some doubts), they aren't working or being enforced in my
opinion. And yes this is my opinion so that's subject to different
opinions of course.



That brings us to the next point
History clearly shows that gun-control is an intrusive step-by-step process
that keeps putting one more and more restrictions on the law-abiding while
having no effect on criminals
See the last 100 years of gun-control in Canada and England
Study the increase on gun-control and the LACK of decrease of crime
In England the most recent restriction on handguns actually led to a
very noticeable crease in ALL crime.


One last thing, I don't know the actual stats but I will assume you
are correct about car deaths vs. gun deaths. The problem is more
people depend on cars for different reasons than guns in everyday
life. I kinda like guns being treated like cars for regulation
purposes like renewal of licenses, registration, etc... .

A lot of people (about 2,500,000 annually) depend on a gun to AVOID being
the victim of a criminal

LOL
Goes to show how little you know about the differences between "car control"
and "gun control"

If you change the current laws to be equal to guns
1) I could walk into any gun store ANYWHERE in the country and buy a gun
without a background check or a license needed
2) I could take that gun home and shoot it on my property without
registration and license
3) I would only need a license to take it out in public, and then
effectively could take it anywhere including buildings
4) I could mail order a car online, no questions or papers required
5) Even a minor could own or purchase a gun, as long as they had money to
pay for it.
And that is just the first 5 differences
And there are more


YOU REALLY REALLY need to educate yourself and soon.