On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:07:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns.

I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.


I don't about that, this is a really hard call to make. On one hand,
you don't want him to have a gun so he might defend himself and live
long enough to procreate. On the other he might accidentally kill
himself cleaning it before he can procreate. Tough call.

Nah, in the latter scenario he might take someone worthwhile with him.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:09:02 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!


Sorry Doug.....krw's post doesn't not prove your point.
It only serves to illustrate his frustration with your lack of
capacity to understand & absorb logical argument.

I am totally conflicted with respect to your interaction in this
newsgroup.
I feel ultimately sorry for your employer but hope he does not
discover your lack ability.....lest you become a ward of the state. :
(

cheers
Bob


I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns. If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Yes we know that you are capable of doing the parrot
Your way is not even demonstrated
ALl you're doing is being a parrot, and a very stupid one at that.

It takes no brains to parrot. Even a tape recorder can do it.

Doug wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:21:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


Let me get this straight, you take a study about one town and
expect
me to believe that every other town at that time to be the same?
Gimme a break.

Sure.

It was you who raised the specter of "Wild West shootouts" and they
were shown, by example, to not be very violent at all.



One example !

one more than you have provided

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:19:26 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:25:43 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:01 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 7:54 am, "Doug" wrote:

GIANT SNIP

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs
to
change.

You are not knowledgeable of current gun laws or gun use / misuse
statistics.

None the less, I await your well thought out suggestions.......

cheers
Bob

Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ??? Whatever but gun control is
needed. I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.
I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case... my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them. And then there's
probably one or two people who don't believe me... well how do you
prove your opinion if I'm not in a position of authority to carry out
my thoughts?

Doug-

I don't see how your situation can be improved......

You don't know the existing laws, you don't know the existing stats,
you don't know what works & what doesn't.
You are making suggestions for "change" but you don't know really know
the existing conditions.
You position & suggestions seem to be based on guesses & feelings.
Clearly not a science or logic background.

You what "better quality controls"..... a lofty goal but based on
what?

I think the saddest thing is.... you cannot see the fallacy of your
position & faults in your logic.

I guess the best you can do is "hope for change".

One last time....research the stats, try to educate yourself.

cheers
Bob


Ok I'll educate myself but I doubt I will change my mind. Yeah, I
like the "hope for change for the better" approach whether I know or
don't know the facts.

If you start your education with the attitude that "I doubt I will change my
mind", then why bother ?

The whole POINT of education IS to "change your mind"

I'll point out here that when John Lott set out to write "More Guns, Less
Crime", his intention was to prove that gun control laws worked. After doing
the research, he found exactly the opposite was true; not only were gun
control laws useless, they were actually responsible for *more* crime and
death.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:10:10 -0400, "
wrote:

The whole POINT of education IS to "change your mind"

I'll point out here that when John Lott set out to write "More Guns, Less
Crime", his intention was to prove that gun control laws worked. After doing
the research, he found exactly the opposite was true; not only were gun
control laws useless, they were actually responsible for *more* crime and
death.

DOJ/FBI funded a study related to guns and violence of adolescent /
teens. Those exposed to guns in the home, proper teaching, etc. were
actually well behaved.

(I'm still looking for the link)
--

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13*am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.

Doug wrote:


whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

But you haven't explained WHY you don't want lunatics to have guns!

You may say, "Well, it's obvious! Lunatics have less control over their
actions, therefore there is a greater risk of them causing irreparable harm
to others."

I'll grant you the first part, but not the second. It seems as if lunatics
killing people is far less frequent than putatively sane people killing each
other. Sure, we had the tragedy in Aurora recently, but that is
insignificant compared to the mayhem in Chicago on a monthly basis.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:22:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:10:10 -0400, "
wrote:

The whole POINT of education IS to "change your mind"

I'll point out here that when John Lott set out to write "More Guns, Less
Crime", his intention was to prove that gun control laws worked. After doing
the research, he found exactly the opposite was true; not only were gun
control laws useless, they were actually responsible for *more* crime and
death.

DOJ/FBI funded a study related to guns and violence of adolescent /
teens. Those exposed to guns in the home, proper teaching, etc. were
actually well behaved.

It's not surprising. Hose families probably taught the younguns a lot of
things, besides how to use the clicker.

(I'm still looking for the link)

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:02:14 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:07:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics with guns.

I don't want you to have a gun, either. You might live long enough to
procreate.


I don't about that, this is a really hard call to make. On one hand,
you don't want him to have a gun so he might defend himself and live
long enough to procreate. On the other he might accidentally kill
himself cleaning it before he can procreate. Tough call.

Nah, in the latter scenario he might take someone worthwhile with him.


Hopefully you, tho I question "worthwhile".

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:51:16 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:10:41 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:50:27 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:40:51 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:52:28 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
om...


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Funny you should raise that point
First off, the image of the "Wild West", shootout in corrals, and all that
nonsense, is PURE HOLLYWOOD FICTION.
The so-called Wild West was actually quite safe and peacefully.

Secondly, there was a study done on a town called Bodie, Ca, which was
involved in the Gold and silver rush of California in the late 1800s
Here's a reference to it:
http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

And even though EVERYONE was armed, and the town was full of young single
men, there was less crime there than in the East Coast cities and towns
that were FAR MORE strictly gun controlled.
Why do you think that is ??


Oh and by the way, strict gun-control Chicago has the equivalent of ONE
Aurora, CO. shooting every 10 days so far this year
Looks like Chicago is much closer to your Hollywood fantasy of the "Wild
West"
And yet Chicago is one of the STRICTEST gun-control cities in the US.




Let me get this straight, you take a study about one town and expect
me to believe that every other town at that time to be the same? Gimme
a break.

No, we really don't expect you to learn anything, ever. You're too stupid.


Whatever

It really is interesting that the only time you agree with me is when I call
you stupid (you really are). Well, at least you can get that right.


Actually you are too stupid to understand I do not agree with you.

Thank god that I read from another source that about 2/3s of the
nation wants some form of gun control. May not be my idea of gun
control but at least it's something.

Oh it's funny too what I read about the wild west. It was wild
outside most towns but in some towns, there actually was better gun
control than now because you weren't allowed to have a gun in town
unless you were the law.

Anyway go on having fun asserting that I want to remove everyone's
guns despite my many posts to the contrary.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:33:49 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:56:14 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:52:37 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:44:40 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 8:13*am, "Doug" wrote:
GIANT SNIP
Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

You are not familiar with the data surrounding the existing conditions
yet you clamor for change?

You don't know where you are or how you got there.
You don't like where you are so you're going to start walking to
undefined destination via an unknown route?

Clue: You don't live in the wild west..... to your uneducated mind,
it just "feels" that way.

Unfortunately, it's not about the data it's about feelings.

cheers
Bob


Why is crime in particular gun crime going down nationwide? Please
cite the sources.

You've already stated that you wouldn't read them. Here, show us that you've
changed your (teensy) mind:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...uns+less+crime


Plain and simple even for you....

It would be far too complicated for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.
If you have a better method to do this, fine with me.

I suggested that we take away all of your Constitutional rights. That would
help.

My suggestion was a form of gun control but if there is a better way, fine.

Your "suggestion" isn't.


Ok, I have no problem with someone else's suggestion as long as it
helps to get guns away from lunatics. I never said my idea was the
only way or the best way... it was just my idea.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:53:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "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 ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is
obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.

You really are nuts!

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

You're wrong, and stupid, but that's news to no one here.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

Actually, it's NOT "name calling"
It's a factual description of your level of knowledge
Do you know the difference between ignorant and stupid
"Stupid is just ignorant refusing to learn"

Ignorance is always forgiven is the individual makes an effort to correct
it
Stupid is contemptible specifcally because the individual CHOOSES to
remain ignorant, And worse, keeps foisting it on others

You have been given the means to learn
Go to it, or accept being considered stupid



whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

You suggested way does NOT work
Only a lunatic would continue to do the same thing over and over and
hope that the next time it will work
Guess who the lunatic here actually is
Name has 4 letters.
Starts with "D", ends with "g", and has 2 vowels in between...


Repeating yourself like a parrot has NO traction if you want to convince us
You need to DEMONSTRATE that your solution is ACTUALLY a solution to your
problem
Most of us, unlike you have already spent a great deal of time thinking
about this and working through the questions and answers
You have NOT even bothered to educate yourself, and yet here you are
proposing a solution, when you can't even demonstrate clearly any
understanding of a problem



Ok, without debating.... fine, you suggest an idea that takes guns
away from lunatics and I'll go for it.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:33:52 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

But you haven't explained WHY you don't want lunatics to have guns!


If I have to explain this, I hope you don't have a gun.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 20, 5:14*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP

You ****ing moron. *We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. *You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. *No name calling at all; fact.

Thanks for proving my point !!!!

Sorry Doug.....krw's post doesn't not prove your point.
It only serves to illustrate his frustration with your lack of
capacity to understand & absorb logical argument.

I am totally conflicted with respect to your interaction in this
newsgroup.
I feel ultimately sorry for your employer but hope he does not
discover your lack ability.....lest you become a ward of the state. *:
(

cheers
Bob

I'll repeat myself.... *I don't want lunatics carrying guns. *If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Doug-

I'll let Hey Bub's clear & patience response serve as my own with this
addition.....

You make simplistic statements but fail to go further (peel the
onion).
You do not consider details required to achieve your desires.
Additionally you fail to consider the "knock-on effects", few actions
occur in a true "single variable" situation.

An ancient engineer (close to 80) I worked with once oft said
"concepts are easy, the devil is in the details"

cheers
Bob



I agree with that engineer. I offered a few of my ideas but others
said it's not going to work. Ok, I say then offer your idea that
takes guns out away from lunatics and I'll go for it.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:53:27 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:01:04 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:43:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "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 ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.

You really are nuts!

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

You're wrong, and stupid, but that's news to no one here.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all; fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!

That you're a moron? You're welcome.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....

When playing with a child... (BTW, an ellipsis only has three dots)

Now let me explain it simple even for you....

Yet too simple for you.

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

1. No one here cares what you want (or are you too stupid to notice?)
2. There are already restrictions on "lunatics" possessing guns (but you're
too stupid to know that, even though you've been told at least ten times)

I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

Take away your first amendment rights.


I underestimated you. I should have expected this type response.
My bad.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:54:47 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:01:04 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

1. No one here cares what you want (or are you too stupid to notice?)
2. There are already restrictions on "lunatics" possessing guns (but
you're too stupid to know that, even though you've been told at least
ten times)

I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

Take away your first amendment rights.



"Doug" is trying to do "prior restraint" and apparently incapable of
understanding that that will not work in this case.
He thinks that forcing licensing,registration,and psych tests before being
able to possess a firearm is going to work. It hasn't in any nation on
Earth. Norway has strict licensing and gun registration,and they still had
a mass murder with legally obtained guns,and the same occurred in UK and
AUS too.


Nothing is 100% but if we can at least improve, that's a start. And
if my suggestion doesn't work ok. Then you suggest a way to take guns
away from lunatics.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:11:12 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:43:50 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "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 ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what is
obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as stupid.

You really are nuts!

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs
to
change.

You're wrong, and stupid, but that's news to no one here.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for over
a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside
to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all;
fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!

That you're a moron? You're welcome.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....
Now let me explain it simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics
carrying guns. I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a
better way, fine.

The only ****ing moron here is the idiot doing the parrot
That's you
You seem INCAPABLE and UNWILLING to provide a HOW to do it
Also HOW your solution will actually work

YOU are the one reduced to stupidly repeat yourself.



I did that for your level of IQ.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Doug wrote:


whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

But you haven't explained WHY you don't want lunatics to have guns!

You may say, "Well, it's obvious! Lunatics have less control over their
actions, therefore there is a greater risk of them causing irreparable
harm to others."

I'll grant you the first part, but not the second. It seems as if lunatics
killing people is far less frequent than putatively sane people killing
each other. Sure, we had the tragedy in Aurora recently, but that is
insignificant compared to the mayhem in Chicago on a monthly basis.


But for knee-jerkers like dougie, it's NOT about facts, it's about
FEEEEEEELINGS...

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:51:16 -0400, "
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:10:41 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:50:27 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:40:51 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:52:28 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
news:fqms28liq8brvkicm2ffd7sgl9pcbb4ba6@4ax. com...


Regardless what laws there are or are not, gun control has to
change.
I don't want us to live in the wild west.

Funny you should raise that point
First off, the image of the "Wild West", shootout in corrals, and all
that
nonsense, is PURE HOLLYWOOD FICTION.
The so-called Wild West was actually quite safe and peacefully.

Secondly, there was a study done on a town called Bodie, Ca, which was
involved in the Gold and silver rush of California in the late 1800s
Here's a reference to it:
http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

And even though EVERYONE was armed, and the town was full of young
single
men, there was less crime there than in the East Coast cities and
towns
that were FAR MORE strictly gun controlled.
Why do you think that is ??


Oh and by the way, strict gun-control Chicago has the equivalent of
ONE
Aurora, CO. shooting every 10 days so far this year
Looks like Chicago is much closer to your Hollywood fantasy of the
"Wild
West"
And yet Chicago is one of the STRICTEST gun-control cities in the
US.




Let me get this straight, you take a study about one town and expect
me to believe that every other town at that time to be the same? Gimme
a break.

No, we really don't expect you to learn anything, ever. You're too
stupid.


Whatever

It really is interesting that the only time you agree with me is when I
call
you stupid (you really are). Well, at least you can get that right.


"Whatever" is NOT "agreement" by any stretch, except yours
At best it's summary dismissal.



Actually you are too stupid to understand I do not agree with you.


That's funny coming from you dougie


Thank god that I read from another source that about 2/3s of the
nation wants some form of gun control.

What source is that ?


May not be my idea of gun
control but at least it's something.



We already know your idea of gun-control, dougie
As you stated in your first post, you don't want ANYONE to have a gun.
(That was such a Freudian slip by you)


Oh it's funny too what I read about the wild west.

More likely fiction.
But hey, no surprise there

It was wild outside most towns but in some towns,
there actually was better gun control than now because
you weren't allowed to have a gun in town
unless you were the law.


Just goes to show that even then idiots like you were already running around
Too bad that does NOT justify disarming people and making them
defenseless.


Anyway go on having fun asserting that I want to remove everyone's
guns despite my many posts to the contrary.

LOL
And yet all your spin takes us back to the simple fact that when asked about
exactly WHAT kind of gun-control you espouse, you are COMPLETELY UNABLE to
expand on it.
Apparently for you, feeeeeeeelings trump logic

Doug wrote:


Actually you are too stupid to understand I do not agree with you.

Thank god that I read from another source that about 2/3s of the
nation wants some form of gun control. May not be my idea of gun
control but at least it's something.

"Gun control" COULD be hitting your target.

That said, in the wake of the Aurora shooting, 53% of Coloradans see no need
for stricter gun control laws.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...n_control_laws




Oh it's funny too what I read about the wild west. It was wild
outside most towns but in some towns, there actually was better gun
control than now because you weren't allowed to have a gun in town
unless you were the law.

In this case "some" equals exactly one: Tombstone, Arizona.


Anyway go on having fun asserting that I want to remove everyone's
guns despite my many posts to the contrary.

Well, you don't want crazy people to have guns and, evidently, you leave it
up to some level of government to decide who's crazy. Can you see the
problem with that?

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:03:58 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:53:10 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion. Go
back to your hole.

Actually, it's NOT "name calling"
It's a factual description of your level of knowledge
Do you know the difference between ignorant and stupid
"Stupid is just ignorant refusing to learn"

Ignorance is always forgiven is the individual makes an effort to
correct
it
Stupid is contemptible specifcally because the individual CHOOSES to
remain ignorant, And worse, keeps foisting it on others

You have been given the means to learn
Go to it, or accept being considered stupid



whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

You suggested way does NOT work
Only a lunatic would continue to do the same thing over and over and
hope that the next time it will work
Guess who the lunatic here actually is
Name has 4 letters.
Starts with "D", ends with "g", and has 2 vowels in between...


Repeating yourself like a parrot has NO traction if you want to convince
us
You need to DEMONSTRATE that your solution is ACTUALLY a solution to your
problem
Most of us, unlike you have already spent a great deal of time thinking
about this and working through the questions and answers
You have NOT even bothered to educate yourself, and yet here you are
proposing a solution, when you can't even demonstrate clearly any
understanding of a problem



Ok, without debating.... fine, you suggest an idea that takes guns
away from lunatics and I'll go for it.

Once again, you demonstrate yourself to be a stupid parot only good for
repeating yourself

YOU are the one who wants that
YOU propose an idea
Something that you have failed to do so far
It's YOUR idea that it would be useful
You haven't even been able to demonstrate that.

So go to it, dummy
Present your case

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:11:12 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:08:52 -0400, "
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:43:50 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:46:07 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:00:42 -0400, "
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:54:23 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:29:10 -0400, "
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:54 -0500, "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 ?

Your words show how stupid you are. I'm simply pointing out what
is
obvious
to others.

Guess I'm too stupid to understand that too.

Once again, we agree.


NO. Frankly quoting laws is stupid so that makes you just as
stupid.

You really are nuts!

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs
to
change.

You're wrong, and stupid, but that's news to no one here.


Sure resort to name calling because you can't dispute my assertion.
Go
back to your hole.

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for
over
a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside
to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all;
fact.


Thanks for proving my point !!!!

That you're a moron? You're welcome.


Now that you got your childish ways done.....
Now let me explain it simple even for you.... I don't want lunatics
carrying guns. I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a
better way, fine.

The only ****ing moron here is the idiot doing the parrot
That's you
You seem INCAPABLE and UNWILLING to provide a HOW to do it
Also HOW your solution will actually work

YOU are the one reduced to stupidly repeat yourself.



I did that for your level of IQ.

Keep wishing, dummy

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:33:52 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

But you haven't explained WHY you don't want lunatics to have guns!


If I have to explain this, I hope you don't have a gun.

So you can't explain it.
And because of that HE should NOT have a gun ??
How stupid are you, really ??

He has already explained why your idea is flawed
Your avoiding explaining why you feel it needs to be addressed, just
demonstrates the intellectual vacuum in which you operate

Doug wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:33:52 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug wrote:


whatever. I'll explain it so even a person like you can
understand....I don't want lunatics carrying guns. I suggested a
form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

But you haven't explained WHY you don't want lunatics to have guns!


If I have to explain this, I hope you don't have a gun.

It's your assertion and, yes, you do have to explain a wild, off-the-wall,
and nonsensical claim.

I have a gun. I have a LOT of guns. As I once explained to a Washington,
D.C. cab driver, I had, at that time, just your basic "starter set."

"Starter set?" he replied. "What's a 'starter set?"

"Uh, the household basics: short-barreled shotgun, carbine, handgun, and a
throw-down - just your starter set."

[pause]

"Where's youz want off!"

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 20, 5:14 am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:17:58 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Aug 18, 3:43 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP

You ****ing moron. We've been disputing your stupid assertion for
over a
week. You admit that you refuse to learn, so there isn't any downside
to
calling you what you are; a ****ing moron. No name calling at all;
fact.

Thanks for proving my point !!!!

Sorry Doug.....krw's post doesn't not prove your point.
It only serves to illustrate his frustration with your lack of
capacity to understand & absorb logical argument.

I am totally conflicted with respect to your interaction in this
newsgroup.
I feel ultimately sorry for your employer but hope he does not
discover your lack ability.....lest you become a ward of the state. :
(

cheers
Bob

I'll repeat myself.... I don't want lunatics carrying guns. If you
have a better way to control it, that's fine with me.

Doug-

I'll let Hey Bub's clear & patience response serve as my own with this
addition.....

You make simplistic statements but fail to go further (peel the
onion).
You do not consider details required to achieve your desires.
Additionally you fail to consider the "knock-on effects", few actions
occur in a true "single variable" situation.

An ancient engineer (close to 80) I worked with once oft said
"concepts are easy, the devil is in the details"

cheers
Bob



I agree with that engineer. I offered a few of my ideas but others
said it's not going to work. Ok, I say then offer your idea that
takes guns out away from lunatics and I'll go for it.

You offered NOTHING
You just repeated yourself like a stupid parrot

Since YOU are the with the the hard-on about guns for lunatics
YOU are the one who needs to:
a) justify it's a problem
b) demonstrate how to do it
c) all the while leaving everyone else alone
So far your only propped solution was to disarm EVERYONE
(Even though you've been lying through your teeth and denying it
since you were called on that )|

Your idea dougie.
YOU prove it's a REAL problem
YOU provide a proposed solution
YOU demonstrate that your proposed solution will actually work

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:54:47 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:01:04 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

1. No one here cares what you want (or are you too stupid to notice?)
2. There are already restrictions on "lunatics" possessing guns (but
you're too stupid to know that, even though you've been told at least
ten times)

I suggested a form of gun control but if you have a better way, fine.

Take away your first amendment rights.



"Doug" is trying to do "prior restraint" and apparently incapable of
understanding that that will not work in this case.
He thinks that forcing licensing,registration,and psych tests before being
able to possess a firearm is going to work. It hasn't in any nation on
Earth. Norway has strict licensing and gun registration,and they still had
a mass murder with legally obtained guns,and the same occurred in UK and
AUS too.


Nothing is 100% but if we can at least improve, that's a start.

LOL
So once again, we're back to incremental ratcheting up of gun-control
Since the strict systems in place in Norway, Germany, the UK and Australia,
didn't work, we should make it even more strict..
And what makes you think that will work ?
At what point do you stop ratcheting up ?
When you have implemented 100% gun-control ?
But we already KNOW that that does NOT work.
So your "ratcheting up" will not work


And if my suggestion doesn't work ok.
Then you suggest a way to take guns
away from lunatics.

Why should we make any such suggestion
YOU are the one who wants it
YOU provide a FUNCTIONAL solution to your questionable problem

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Doug wrote:


Actually you are too stupid to understand I do not agree with you.

Thank god that I read from another source that about 2/3s of the
nation wants some form of gun control. May not be my idea of gun
control but at least it's something.

"Gun control" COULD be hitting your target.

That said, in the wake of the Aurora shooting, 53% of Coloradans see no
need for stricter gun control laws.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...n_control_laws



I have yet to see dougie provide a SINGLE CITE to support his claim
It appears that dougie and facts are opposites




Oh it's funny too what I read about the wild west. It was wild
outside most towns but in some towns, there actually was better gun
control than now because you weren't allowed to have a gun in town
unless you were the law.

In this case "some" equals exactly one: Tombstone, Arizona.


Anyway go on having fun asserting that I want to remove everyone's
guns despite my many posts to the contrary.

Well, you don't want crazy people to have guns and, evidently, you leave
it up to some level of government to decide who's crazy. Can you see the
problem with that?



Most likely not
He comes across as one of those who have no problems with the government
doing everything for him, including wiping his nose and butt.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I have a gun. I have a LOT of guns. As I once explained to a Washington,
D.C. cab driver, I had, at that time, just your basic "starter set."

"Starter set?" he replied. "What's a 'starter set?"

"Uh, the household basics: short-barreled shotgun, carbine, handgun, and a
throw-down - just your starter set."


Darn.
That reminds me, I need to start putting together a starter set for each of
my kids
The oldest just became a teenager.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:47:33 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:


I don't want lunatics carrying guns.

What I think you're saying is that you want Lunatic Control. An under-
the-radar form of Gun Control. Right?

--
"My doctor says I have a malformed public-duty gland
and a natural deficiency in moral fiber, and that I am therefore
excused from saving Universes."
--

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:14:57 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Well, you don't want crazy people to have guns and, evidently, you leave it
up to some level of government to decide who's crazy. Can you see the
problem with that?

Sure. He wants the lunatics to run the asylum.
--

"Atila Iskander" wrote in :

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Ok, you show me how to keep guns out of the lunatic's hands.

Why should I show you something I don't particularly care for, or believe
possible.


YOU want to keep guns out of "lunatics" hands
First
DEFINE "lunatic"
Second
Define why gun should be kept out of their hands
Third
Demonstrate that there is a NET BENEFIT for doing so
Fourth
Demonstrate that it will NOT infringe on anyone else's rights

(First, please note that I am not the same Doug as the one you've been arguing with)

You missed a couple:

Propose an effective means of preventing said lunatics from acquiring guns

Explain in detail how and why said proposal will accomplish what existing laws do not

On 8/21/2012 5:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Atila Iskander" wrote in :

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Ok, you show me how to keep guns out of the lunatic's hands.

Why should I show you something I don't particularly care for, or believe
possible.


YOU want to keep guns out of "lunatics" hands
First
DEFINE "lunatic"
Second
Define why gun should be kept out of their hands
Third
Demonstrate that there is a NET BENEFIT for doing so
Fourth
Demonstrate that it will NOT infringe on anyone else's rights

(First, please note that I am not the same Doug as the one you've been arguing with)

You missed a couple:

Propose an effective means of preventing said lunatics from acquiring guns

Explain in detail how and why said proposal will accomplish what existing laws do not


All lunatics will be forced to wear locked on gloves which have fingers
too big to fit in the trigger guard of a gun. Of course nose picking
would be impossible too. ^_^

TDD

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:26:03 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in :

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Ok, you show me how to keep guns out of the lunatic's hands.

Why should I show you something I don't particularly care for, or believe
possible.


YOU want to keep guns out of "lunatics" hands
First
DEFINE "lunatic"
Second
Define why gun should be kept out of their hands
Third
Demonstrate that there is a NET BENEFIT for doing so
Fourth
Demonstrate that it will NOT infringe on anyone else's rights

(First, please note that I am not the same Doug as the one you've been arguing with)

You missed a couple:

Propose an effective means of preventing said lunatics from acquiring guns

Explain in detail how and why said proposal will accomplish what existing laws do not

And further explain, in great detail, why a criminal can conceal a
handgun without a permit, but I need a permit to so the same thing.
--

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:34:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

All lunatics will be forced to wear locked on gloves which have fingers
too big to fit in the trigger guard of a gun. Of course nose picking
would be impossible too. ^_^

TDD

Sounds like more gun regulations to me.
--

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:29:05 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Doug wrote:


Actually you are too stupid to understand I do not agree with you.

Thank god that I read from another source that about 2/3s of the
nation wants some form of gun control. May not be my idea of gun
control but at least it's something.

"Gun control" COULD be hitting your target.

That said, in the wake of the Aurora shooting, 53% of Coloradans see no
need for stricter gun control laws.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...n_control_laws



I have yet to see dougie provide a SINGLE CITE to support his claim
It appears that dougie and facts are opposites




Oh it's funny too what I read about the wild west. It was wild
outside most towns but in some towns, there actually was better gun
control than now because you weren't allowed to have a gun in town
unless you were the law.

In this case "some" equals exactly one: Tombstone, Arizona.


Anyway go on having fun asserting that I want to remove everyone's
guns despite my many posts to the contrary.

Well, you don't want crazy people to have guns and, evidently, you leave
it up to some level of government to decide who's crazy. Can you see the
problem with that?



Most likely not
He comes across as one of those who have no problems with the government
doing everything for him, including wiping his nose and butt.

The real issue is that he wipes his butt with his nose because his head is up
his ass.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:34:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 8/21/2012 5:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Atila Iskander" wrote in :

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Ok, you show me how to keep guns out of the lunatic's hands.

Why should I show you something I don't particularly care for, or believe
possible.


YOU want to keep guns out of "lunatics" hands
First
DEFINE "lunatic"
Second
Define why gun should be kept out of their hands
Third
Demonstrate that there is a NET BENEFIT for doing so
Fourth
Demonstrate that it will NOT infringe on anyone else's rights

(First, please note that I am not the same Doug as the one you've been arguing with)

You missed a couple:

Propose an effective means of preventing said lunatics from acquiring guns

Explain in detail how and why said proposal will accomplish what existing laws do not


All lunatics will be forced to wear locked on gloves which have fingers
too big to fit in the trigger guard of a gun. Of course nose picking
would be impossible too. ^_^

For Dougie that's cruel and unusual punishment.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:31:44 -0500, "Doug" wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:15:00 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 23:21:11 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:06:22 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:31:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:01:31 -0500, "Doug"
wrote:

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun. That's just
not the case...

You said here, very clearly. I pointed this out to you when you tried
to pull the wool over our eyes. Read what you wrote. Read when it was


Please tell me where. Except for one post I can recall which I
admitted to poor wording, I clearly have said I believe people have a
right to guns under certain conditions.


This is the last time I point out what you said. I'll give the exact
information. You said:

:On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:39:26 -0500, "Doug"
:wrote:

:I still am bad if that means I still favor better laws to account for
:gun ownership. I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a gun no
:matter how well you word your reply. There has to be some regulation
:(perhaps I should say better regulation) of gun ownership in a
:civilized world.

The exact words were " I don't want "anyone" to have a right to own a
gun no matter how well you word your reply."



And as I pointed out once or twice after this post, I could have
worded it better. WHY do you ignor my admitance???


I'm not ignoring it. It is important to be know sure if what you say
is what you mean.

I meant it to say .... " I don't want anyone without qualifications "
to own a gun. Do you see the difference???????


Define "qualifications".


No because I did earlier and people say what I have in mind doesn't
work. I tend to disagree but let it be.

Then there is no point in you whining here, anymore, right?

And if you don't see my admitance then just go by my multiple other
posts.... clearly you should see for the 100th time, I do not oppose
guns if the gun holder is qualified. I will say it one more time for
you .... I do not want lunatics holding a gun. Is this not simple
enough to understand??????????????????

Just checking to make sure you're not flip-flopping. A person can seem
normal one minute and in the next minute be talking about a space ship
in his room.


I think you have read or will read that I considered owning a gun at
least twice in my life so unless I've suddenly changed my mind now, I
am not against gun ownership with responsible, law abiding citizens.

Then why are you wanting to restrict their ownership by law abiding citizens?


I can't prove what I say so all you have is my word.

Your "word" has proven to be worthless.

I would never
consider lobbying against gun ownership but I would never agree to
just giving guns away without some form of regulation or whatever you
call it.

Who is "giving guns away"? I'll take a few more.

In my mind, I think it's a good idea to know who has a
gun(s) and what they own (minimum).

To what purpose, except to later confiscate them? ...as is the inevitable
result.

I suppose a valid question is how much regulation and I don't know.

How about *none*? ...as the Constitution states.

I agree that's a fair question
addressed to me or whoever wants gun control of any kind. That said,
I don't think doing nothing and just giving guns away is the right
answer neither.

Idiot. No one is "giving guns away".

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:

"Doug" wrote in message
...

Ok, you show me how to keep guns out of the lunatic's hands.

Why should I show you something I don't particularly care for, or believe
possible.


YOU want to keep guns out of "lunatics" hands
First
DEFINE "lunatic"
Second
Define why gun should be kept out of their hands
Third
Demonstrate that there is a NET BENEFIT for doing so
Fourth
Demonstrate that it will NOT infringe on anyone else's rights

(First, please note that I am not the same Doug as the one you've been
arguing with)

You missed a couple:

Propose an effective means of preventing said lunatics from acquiring guns

Explain in detail how and why said proposal will accomplish what existing
laws do not

Hey Doug M.,
I tried to keep the list simple for the simpleton
Also by listing more, you are no confusing him way beyond his pay grade.

On Aug 20, 10:42*pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:



On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP



You do not consider details required to achieve your desires.
Additionally you fail to consider the "knock-on effects", few actions
occur in a true "single variable" situation.

An ancient engineer (close to 80) I worked with once oft said
"concepts are easy, the devil is in the details"

cheers
Bob

I agree with that engineer. *I offered a few of my ideas but others
said it's not going to work. *Ok, I say then offer your idea that
takes guns out away from lunatics and I'll go for it.


Doug-

You have not offered any detailed ideas...
you've only tossed out a few very general "starting points".

You agree with my engineer associate but don't offer any details.

The reason I do not offer any detailed gun control suggestions?

Over 40 years of seeing idiot politicians (sorry, being redundant
there) propose
& pass gun control laws that yield no positive results.

Watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXqwjoC1S_k

The bad guy in the video is on parole or probation, he's a repeat
offender.
Perp takes the shop clerk in the back, cuffs him & slashes his throat.
Luckily, the clerk doesn't die from his wound, staggers outside & gets
help.

If the shop wasn't in Los Angeles, CA and instead was in Texas,
the clerk could have easily been strapped. As soon as the shotgun came
out
the perp would have been dead....several problems (past, current &
future) solved at once.

What is your suggested gun control solution for this case?

cheers
Bob

On 8/22/2012 1:33 AM, DD_BobK wrote:
On Aug 20, 10:42 pm, "Doug" wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:



On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:54:00 -0400, "

GIANT SNIP



You do not consider details required to achieve your desires.
Additionally you fail to consider the "knock-on effects", few actions
occur in a true "single variable" situation.

An ancient engineer (close to 80) I worked with once oft said
"concepts are easy, the devil is in the details"

cheers
Bob

I agree with that engineer. I offered a few of my ideas but others
said it's not going to work. Ok, I say then offer your idea that
takes guns out away from lunatics and I'll go for it.


Doug-

You have not offered any detailed ideas...
you've only tossed out a few very general "starting points".

You agree with my engineer associate but don't offer any details.

The reason I do not offer any detailed gun control suggestions?

Over 40 years of seeing idiot politicians (sorry, being redundant
there) propose
& pass gun control laws that yield no positive results.

Watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXqwjoC1S_k

The bad guy in the video is on parole or probation, he's a repeat
offender.
Perp takes the shop clerk in the back, cuffs him & slashes his throat.
Luckily, the clerk doesn't die from his wound, staggers outside & gets
help.

If the shop wasn't in Los Angeles, CA and instead was in Texas,
the clerk could have easily been strapped. As soon as the shotgun came
out
the perp would have been dead....several problems (past, current &
future) solved at once.

What is your suggested gun control solution for this case?

cheers
Bob


Liberal anti gun freaks often watch themselves and their loved ones die
at the hands of some poor misunderstood, disadvantaged criminal while
contemplating how morally superior their position on gun ownership is. ^_^

TDD