On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:51:40 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:29:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:24:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

Yes, we heard you the first time, Douggie.

I'm not Doug. Never confuse this matter again.

Call me Oren!

If you don't want to be called "Douggie" don't post his drivel. ;-)
(do I really need smileys? Always?)

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 08:06:36 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 26, 6:43*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
When otherwise intelligent people push and implement solutions that don't
help, you can be sure there is a hidden agenda.

That combines with the "if it isn't working, do it harder" thought process.

In another couple years, we'll have Chicago's crime rate across the
(disarmed law abiding) USA, we'll have the government posture of the TSA as
the cops search all the law abiding with no probable cause, and we'll have
the English legal system which drives the burglar home for a good night
sleep and prosecutes the home owner who's been broken in a dozen times, and
finally takes to beating burglars with a Cricket bat.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org

Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

On 1/25/2013 10:51 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:29:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:24:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

Yes, we heard you the first time, Douggie.

I'm not Doug. Never confuse this matter again.

Call me Oren!


Lighten up Dougie.

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:54 -0500, Rifleman wrote:

Bert wrote:

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

Yes - because many or most gun injuries and deaths are performed by
people who 5 minutes before-hand were "law abiding".

Citation needed.

Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run
roughshod over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

Then he's right; you have *no* clue about our history *or* the
Constitution.

And I would hardly call the body of citizens in the US that constitute
gun owners a minority.

You're wrong, of course.

Rifleman wrote:

Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are
those the people that you really want to own such weapons?

I absolutely do not want to put any barriers up preventing that person's
choice.

Prohibiting the purchase of a "Rambo Style" weapon just because of its looks
is a hideous idea. What's one man's trash is another man's treasure. If
someone wanted a hunting rifle painted in psychedelic colors, more power to
him, but it wouldn't be for me.

To dictate someone's range of choice because of what is pleasing or ugly to
you is supremely arrogant.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:55:24 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome",
deadly, dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting
rifle?

The problem is, a stock is not a gun so, even during the 94 "ban"
you could still buy a folding stock or a removable pistol grip for
your "legal" rifle.

Again -

Saying you can do this or that, that you can machine this or that part,
that you can swap this or that part, etc, is not the point.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

And this claim is based on what exactly ??
What happened during the 10 years (1994-2004) of the AWB prove you wrong.


Yeah Rifleman does not understand that the Bushmaster was specifically
designed not to be an "assault weapon" by the 1994 definition and was
sold legally throughout the ban.

Not to mention that Connecticut has it's own version of the Assault Weapon
Ban, and the Bushmaster, was clearly legal under that law.

On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Right! We don't carry guns into schools,
diners, or theatres. We just sit there and
let criminals kill us.

Now, we will register our legally owned
guns, turn over certain gun and magazines
for destruction, and hope the criminals
(who kept theirs) don't hurt us.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place,
then we all live under that law. Thus, "we already
have law..." means exactly that. WE all live with
that law.

Robert Macy wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law
since before
70's that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure,
but I think
the wording is that once you have removed the threat of
bodily harm
from your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them
anymore. The
law was designed so that if somebody comes at you with a
knife, you
take the knife away removing the threat of bodily harm,
you are
then NOT allowed to beat the assailant into
unconsciousness -
preventing you from trying to administer punishment for
the
original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then
we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means
exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Well, "We" in Texas have the Castle Doctrine and after dark
it's even more lenient.
So be careful

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:43:02 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Well, "We" in Texas have the Castle Doctrine and after dark
it's even more lenient.
So be careful

Two years ago Nevada fell short of the law being called a "Castle
Doctrine" state. It means we still have no relief from liability that
when a person makes a fool of himself and walks into my home. --
(What you have in Texas)

With open carry you shoot and kill a car jacker, so it is not limited
to my house or when walking the kittens. in my town

Interestingly, Nevada is not having a lot of talk about gun control.
(one pop-upped this week, not much traction)

The Legislature opines Feb. 3

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:43:02 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Well, "We" in Texas have the Castle Doctrine and after dark
it's even more lenient.
So be careful

Two years ago Nevada fell short of the law being called a "Castle
Doctrine" state. It means we still have no relief from liability that
when a person makes a fool of himself and walks into my home. --
(What you have in Texas)


Quick-thinking is often a substitute.

"Well, officer he kicked down the door. He screamed 'I'm gonna kill all you
mother-*****s and everybody you ever knew!" He raised the hatchet he was
carrying (or knife or baseball bat or whatever you have lying about) and I,
in fear of my life, discharged my weapon in his direction."

Of course, better is to say NOTHING to the investigating officers, unless
it's along the lines of "Officer, I think I'm having a heart attack! I need
to get to the emergency room!"

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?
#
# We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
# under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
# all live with that law.

Maybe true for sheeple like you who seem unable to think or take
responsibility for themselves and thus need to be told daily how they are to
live.
But intelligent people know that bad laws, lead to bad situations.
And such laws need to be disobeyed and fought by all means possible.

On Jan 28, 8:05*am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Robert Macy" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote: ...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

#
# We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
# under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
# all live with that law.

Maybe true for sheeple like you who seem unable to think or take
responsibility for themselves and thus need to be told daily how they are to
live.
But intelligent people know that bad laws, lead to bad situations.
And such laws need to be disobeyed and fought by all means possible.

Despite all the blustering, Robert's point is correct:

"Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. "

It's certainly true for the vast majority of the USA. If
there are laws in some places that say otherwise,
I'd like to see the law cited. And do you think the above
referenced concept is a bad law that needs to be disobeyed
and fought by all means possible? What kind of world
would that be?

On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens. Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

On Jan 28, 6:05*am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Robert Macy" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote: ...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

#
# We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
# under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
# all live with that law.

Maybe true for sheeple like you who seem unable to think or take
responsibility for themselves and thus need to be told daily how they are to
live.
But intelligent people know that bad laws, lead to bad situations.
And such laws need to be disobeyed and fought by all means possible.

BACK DOWN! My statement was an explanation, not an endorsement!
Interesting. You promote picking and choosing the laws you wish to
follow? That is actually NOT a democratic process. The premise is that
we all acquiesce to support what the most people want - as long as it
is not immoral. If you don't like a law, rather than not abide by it
[a lazy response]; get the majority to change it. Now THAT takes
effort.

Don't tell me I;m a sheep or don't take responsibility. You don't
know. I did my term of attempting to affect politicians and the laws.
Met a lot of presidents, presidents' relatives, senators, reps, state
congressional, mayors, hosted a lot of parties and dinners, etc etc
Even watched Panetta when he started out. Met Feinstein way before her
complementing the FBI's markmanship at Ruby Ridge. Back when she was
mayor of the City. I remember the incident when her husband and she
went out to dinner and tossed their car keys to the vallet parking
attendant, then later found out there was NO vallet parking - lost
their car.

No, my statement was NOT an endorsement, nor do I sit quietly by. If
there is a law coming up that will have an important impact, I'm on
the phone to every Congressman I Iknow [and some I don't, who have
been introduced to me/recommended by Congresspeople I know] to explain
the logic of the way they should pursue.

Takes a lot of effort, and causes a LOT of frustration as things have
not been going the way I perceive it should [my way], guess I'm too
old to be of the concern to them I used to be. A new generation of
sheep has arrived. A generation that actually believes the blather
given to them. My ex--KGB friend summed it up very well, "At least we
KNEW it was propaganda."

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:54:54 AM UTC-5, Rifleman wrote:
Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

Yet, that is what happens more often than not here in our great United States of America.

ONE person is "offended" by someone praying in school. Even though the vast majority are either okay with it or don't care, prayer in schools is banned.

ONE person is "offended" by a Christmas tree on public property. Even though the vast majority are either okay with it, no more Christmas trees on public property.

We are not ruled by a majority in this nation, and we haven't been for a long time.

wrote in news:a78026b9-2aa8-4c63-bfc7-
:

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:54:54 AM UTC-5, Rifleman wrote:
Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

Yet, that is what happens more often than not here in our great United States of America.

ONE person is "offended" by someone praying in school. Even though the vast majority are
either okay with it or don't care, prayer in schools is banned.

This is untrue: prayer in schools is not banned. Students are, and always have been, free to
pray in school whenever they wish. What's not permitted is for the school to organize, sponsor,
or lead the prayer. Unless it's a private school, of course.

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder.

I'm looking at what happens (or doesn't happen) at the point-of-sale.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

There's clearly an attraction to the assault rifle format for some of the
Rambo wannabes that go on killing sprees with them. I am not sure that
banning them, though, will dissuade any truly psychotic gunman from his
mission of killing a lot of people. Mass murderers have been able to
inflict some phenomenal damage with even semi-automatic pistols since Howard
Unruh mowed down 13 people with his Luger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

The Luger was designed in 1898 so it's clear even old weapons can do a lot
of damage.

The shape of a weapon affects the ability of potential victims to neutralize
it. The Luger's a relatively easy pistol to render non-operational in close
quarters because of its articulated slide. Grabbing the top of the gun can
prevent (painfully, DAMHIKT) the next round from being loaded. Secret
Service agents are trained to try to get between the hammer and the firing
pin when wresting a gun away. In fact, the Secret Service agent that
disarmed the (unloaded) gun away from the woman who tried to kill Ford did
just that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Buendorf

He pulled the gun away and wrestled the woman to the ground, in the
process slightly injuring his thumb and hand while placing the webbing of
his thumb between the gun's cocked hammer and the slide of the pistol.

Pistols are made with non-exposed hammers that are harder to neutralize the
way the Buendorf tried to do:

http://www.vintagepistols.com/images/642-1.jpg

So shape and design matter, but do they matter enough to ban the familiar
K-shaped assault rifles? Probably not. Unlike the pit bull advocates who
try to make the case that "if pits are banned people will just use other
dogs" we've already seen proof if an assault rifle is not available or
practical, a semi-automatic pistol, shotgun or even a wheel gun will do. On
the other hand, I've yet to see someone arrested for dog fighting anything
but pit bulls and pit crosses.

Banning assault rifles is pointless because it's easier for a killer to
enter deep into a mass of people armed with pistols than with assault rifles
or other long guns and the rate of fire can be just as high or higher. Just
from simple inspection, an assault rifle should be harder to take away from
the shooter because it's compact and usually has an extra grip. But again,
that advantage doesn't seem terribly important when you acknowledge how many
mass killings were perpetrated without assault rifles. The compelling issue
concerning successful neutralization of mass killers *in progress* seems to
be magazine capacity, not gun type.

It's just that your *point* makes no sense.

I'm asking a question that nobody seems to want to answer.

The question raises the point about why some people might want to buy
certain types of rifles.

I recently had this discussion with a retired bird colonel and lifelong
marksman from the Army the other day and surprisingly he was of the opinion
that the shape of the gun and its glorification in all sorts of media *does*
attract precisely the wrong person. He said "if you feel you just have to
have an assault rifle, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own one." (-:
I personally don't believe any mass murderer will just give up if he can't
get an AR-15. He'll settle for less. I'm guessing your average crazed mass
murderer would prefer to have two semi-automatic pistols than one assault
rifle.

I believe Feinstein is screwing up royally trying to get the assault ban
passed (the loud thud you heard was Trader fainting and hitting the floor).
It's just more divisive partisan crap that won't solve the problem but will
further polarize America. O read through NY new law and it seems to be not
much more than a "pile on" law to enable prosecutors to add charges to any
gun incident. Someone with ingenuity could make a flash suppressor with a
hose clamp and a paper towel tube if they had to.

While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference, I'm
certainly willing to try. Even a mediocre marksman should be able to
neutralize a burglar with 7 rounds. People who feel they can't live without
30+ rounds per magazine are pretty clearly intent on killing a lot of people
very quickly. They're the ones society needs to worry about. They're
already pretty anti-socially oriented. It doesn't take much to push at
least some of them way over the line.

If you examine gun laws and public opinion neutrally (and it's very hard to
do because both sides have invented their own irrefutable yet very dubious
"statistics") you'll find the restrictions almost always come about after a
public massacre takes place. The willingness of Americans to accept the
draconian gun laws came about from incidents like this:

On July 28, 1931, it was alleged that Coll unsuccessfully attempted to
kidnap Joey Rao, a Schultz underling. A shootout ensued, and a crowd of
children were caught in the crossfire. A five-year-old child, Michael
Vengalli,[3] died after being shot in the abdomen; several other children
were wounded. After this atrocity, New York City Mayor Jimmy Walker dubbed
Coll "Mad Dog".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Dog_Coll#Aftermath

There's a reason why Chicago and NYC have (had?) some of the toughest gun
laws in the country. During the '30s when Col. Thompson's "gun to end all
crime" - the Tommy Gun - became widely adopted by cops and crooks alike,
drive by shootings were killing dozens of innocent bystanders. Citizens got
very tired of it and the laws limiting ownership of such weapons arose.
That process could be happening again, only this time the focus is on
high-capacity, high rate of fire weapons that rival the Tommy gun's
lethality.

If you look at the mass-murder events that happened over the past dozen
years - how many involve recently-purchased weapons? Weapons that were
purchased a few days, a week or a month before the event?

I've been researching mass killings in the US and around the world and the
answer to your question is "a little bit of everything." Some guns were
purchased for the murders days before, some were stolen from neighbors, some
belonged to relatives, some had been in the shooter's possession for
*decades.* The real problem here is identifying the people who are going to
snap and kill lots of other people. It's clear from China's problems that
if guns aren't available, madmen will use knives, hatchets and hammers.
They do less overall harm per incident, but they do harm.

You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals.

There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.

I'd say there's a difference between a criminal and a madman. The gun lobby
is right in saying that a very particular type of *person* not *weapon* is
the real issue, at least when it comes to mass murderers like Adam Lanza.
Some hope that universal health care could help identify guys like Lanza
before they act, but sadly many mass shooters had plenty of contact with
mental health authorities prior to their rampages to no avail. These
shooters are often quite loony (a precise medical term g) but cunning.
They are not likely to be prevented from killing by psychiatry because we
don't yet (much) punish people for what they might do.

If someone is locked up for making threats, they often go after whomever
they felt turned them in as soon as they are released from protective
custody. Plenty of women have died with a newly issued protective order in
their purse. Something like that may have happened with Adam Lanza - some
news reports say his mother might have been trying to commit him and he
killed her and quite a few more because of it. I am not sure if we'll ever
know what really went on - the only witnesses are dead.

All it's going to do is **** off the 99.99% of legal gun owners.

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners are going to have to realize
that society is reaching the point where they will not tolerate the
abuse, murder, injury and death being performed upon them by guns so
that others can "enjoy" the right to possess these same guns.

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit that a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:

1 - "Because I wanna"
2 - "Because I might have to kill a LOT of people"
3 - "It's the first step in total confiscation"

None of those reasons strikes me as anything to set national policy on.
More importantly, the fact that Jarod Loughner, who shot Rep. Giffords and
the LIRR shooter, Colin Ferguson were both tackled and disarmed during a
magazine change tells me there could be a significant payback by reducing
magazine capacity to WWII infantry levels. Lots of police chiefs quietly
support limits on capacity because it's their people who often end up facing
madmen with high capacity firearms.

The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is the
rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many, most or all
personal firearms are more of a liability to society than a benefit,
then there will be change.

I wouldn't count on the majority swinging to an outright assault rifle ban
unless there are several more elementary school massacres. Instead, states
will draw lines like they did before the Civil War. This time it will be
gun ownership and not slave ownership that divides them, but the process is
well underway and following many of the old geographical boundaries. What
really bothers me is out-of-state groups like the NRA coming into local
elections to try to affect the outcome. State elections should be limited
to state residents, not outside pressure groups.

Oddly enough, the only people I know that believe the Feds could actually
confiscate all firearms are the very far over "absolutists" who also seem to
be afraid of mostly everything - Muslims, welfare cheats, the Federal
government, fluoridation, commies, mandatory vaccinations, CFL bulbs, etc.
Why else would they need so much firepower and 100 round drum magazines? In
their minds, their enemies are many, massive, always poised to attack and
very well armed.

Gun advocates need to start paying attention to the problem and need to
come up with a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy,
insane, angry, autistic or suicidal people. ESPECIALLY people young
people.

That's a tall order barring total confiscation from civilians. I just don't
see that *ever* happening in America. The question for the next decade will
be one of just exactly *where* people are allowed to bring their guns and
whether the "stand you ground" state-level initiatives get pushed back.
Eventually guns will be made much safer and perhaps will only work in the
hands of someone with an RF activating ring. If you've ever seen the
devices they attach to the cars of people convicted for DUI's you'll know
that there's plenty of technology that can be applied to the problem. Most
people could adequately defend themselves with a Taser when you get down to
looking at actual cases concerning gun uses for self-defense.

If the irresponsible people can't be stopped from getting their hands on
guns, and if gun activists, enthusiasts and hobbiests don't want to play
a constructive role, then *everybody* pays a price.

That's an interesting point because very few people are paying the price.
The pain is not shared. Newtown is in a sad way just like the AfRaq wars.
Only a very few families actually make any kind of sacrifice. It's very
hard to stop a juggernaut that's not affecting everyone equally. There's
declining human empathy in the world, IMHO, so the parents of those 20 kids
are really on their own. It may be the natural result of an ever-more
complex and overwhelming world where it's almost impossible to look out for
your own interests. That impersonal world could very easily be the
incubator for the seemingly endless crop of mass killers we have reaped
recently. Obviously more research is needed. Maybe the NRA will get brave
enough to let that happen.

When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.

Most gun owners *do* play nice. That's why they're so up in arms (groan).
They don't want to be punished for the misdeeds of a very, very small number
of shi+ stomping crazies. Who would? Punishing the wrong people (or the
easy to punish people) never works in the long run, at least not with a free
society.

My own personal philosophy is that these events are tragedies like tornadoes
or traffic accidents. They are rare enough that it's foolish to devote
endless resources to prevent them. We can work to lessen their impact when
they do occur, but we're apparently going to have to learn to live with
them. America is a gun nation full of angry people, some of whom, for
whatever reason, cross the line and get so angry that they kill their fellow
citizens by the dozens. That won't change until we know a lot more about
the reasons for people's behavior and how to modify that behavior than we do
know.

It seems to take casualty levels like we saw during the Vietnam War
affecting people across the nation to mobilize real social action. I don't
want to think about how many elementary school massacres it might take to
get people to support an assault rifle ban.

The best we can hope for is a reduction in gun deaths the way we've reduced
automobile fatalities considerably over the years. Gun fatalities should be
equally reducible as well. Unfortunately I'm afraid that with the NRA
working to weaken existing carry laws across the nation, the gun fatality
rate will climb rather than decline in the short run. More guns mean more
firearm accidents and fistfights that end in homicide.

The thing that really bothers me about the current gun control crisis is
that we essentially let the actions of madmen dictate the course of history.
From John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was the St. Valentine's Day
Massacre that prompted the National Firearms Act. Look at how the suicidal
mass murderers of 9/11 changed American history. That's just not right. We
really ought to restrain ourselves from setting national policy based on the
acts of the criminally insane, Muslim martyrs or any other class of mass
murderer.

Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.

Anyone who's been the victim of a crime, particularly a violent one, would
disagree. It's why gun control legislation is almost certainly doomed to
fail, except perhaps for a mega-magazine ban. NY's 7 round limit isn't
realistic but it will give us a chance to see if in 20 years it had any
measurable effect on mass killings. I, for one, doubt it unless they build
a 30' concrete wall around the state. As Mexico shows, tough gun laws mean
nothing if guns can be easily smuggled in to criminals from a place like the
US where the Mexican-banned weapon types are readily available.

The Sullivan law in NYC was passed in 1911 one year after the Mayor William
Gaynor was shot and later died. Some new laws will be passed at the state
level because of Newtown, but I don't see Feinstein making much progress on
an assault weapons ban.

--
Bobby G.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. *WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.


Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:51:39 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:43:02 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Well, "We" in Texas have the Castle Doctrine and after dark
it's even more lenient.
So be careful

Two years ago Nevada fell short of the law being called a "Castle
Doctrine" state. It means we still have no relief from liability that
when a person makes a fool of himself and walks into my home. --
(What you have in Texas)


Quick-thinking is often a substitute.

"Well, officer he kicked down the door. He screamed 'I'm gonna kill all you
mother-*****s and everybody you ever knew!" He raised the hatchet he was
carrying (or knife or baseball bat or whatever you have lying about) and I,
in fear of my life, discharged my weapon in his direction."


He said he was "going to bite my ears off, and the eat my liver."
"Have his way with my Gold fish." Then I shot his ass dead.

Of course, better is to say NOTHING to the investigating officers, unless
it's along the lines of "Officer, I think I'm having a heart attack! I need
to get to the emergency room!"


"Have my first free lawyer meet at the emergency room, please
officer!"

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:48:06 -0500, wrote:

*WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

.... and people pay taxes to be told what to do in those states.

Nevada is gun friendly - I like it.

On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit that a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:


I'll take a stab.

1 - "Because I wanna"

I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.

Being a woman I prefer a 30 round magazine; mostly because I won't
have to reload while killing my immediate threat.

2 - "Because I might have to kill a LOT of people"

Tell me a name of a legal gun owner that remotely suggested the.

3 - "It's the first step in total confiscation"

Hey. You make a good point.

Robert Green wrote:

## You make some interesting points. Please see imbedded comments.



Banning assault rifles is pointless because it's easier for a killer
to enter deep into a mass of people armed with pistols than with
assault rifles or other long guns and the rate of fire can be just as
high or higher. Just from simple inspection, an assault rifle should
be harder to take away from the shooter because it's compact and
usually has an extra grip. But again, that advantage doesn't seem
terribly important when you acknowledge how many mass killings were
perpetrated without assault rifles. The compelling issue concerning
successful neutralization of mass killers *in progress* seems to be
magazine capacity, not gun type.


## In my view, the successful neutralization of a shooter takes place when a
potential victim has the ability to shoot back. Note that EVERY single mass
shooting since 1950 (with possibly one exception) took place in a "Gun Free"
zone.



While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference,
I'm certainly willing to try. Even a mediocre marksman should be
able to neutralize a burglar with 7 rounds.

## Ah, but what if there are TWO burglars?

People who feel they
can't live without 30+ rounds per magazine are pretty clearly intent
on killing a lot of people very quickly.

## Not necessarily, but I'll agree they are intent on killing at least one
goblin very dead.



There's a reason why Chicago and NYC have (had?) some of the toughest
gun laws in the country. During the '30s when Col. Thompson's "gun
to end all crime" - the Tommy Gun - became widely adopted by cops and
crooks alike, drive by shootings were killing dozens of innocent
bystanders. Citizens got very tired of it and the laws limiting
ownership of such weapons arose. That process could be happening
again, only this time the focus is on high-capacity, high rate of
fire weapons that rival the Tommy gun's lethality.

## Nope. Handguns were not banned in Chicago until the late 1980's. DC
banned handguns in 1976.


If someone is locked up for making threats, they often go after
whomever they felt turned them in as soon as they are released from
protective custody. Plenty of women have died with a newly issued
protective order in their purse.

## In my view, she'd have been better off with a pistol in her purse than a
piece of paper.


My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit
that a smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body
counts. I've yet to hear justifications for 30 round magazines that
don't resolve into three fairly unconvincing groups:

1 - "Because I wanna"
2 - "Because I might have to kill a LOT of people"
3 - "It's the first step in total confiscation"

## Smaller magazines may or may not reduce the body count. Connecticut had a
10-round limit, but that didn't stop the recent school shooting.

## "Because I wanna" is sufficient in and of itself. No other consideration
is appropriate.




Lots of police chiefs quietly support limits on capacity
because it's their people who often end up facing madmen with high
capacity firearms.

## Police chiefs are political appointees, often never having really served
on the street. One survey I saw found that over 80% of line officers opposed
any further restrictions on firearms.


The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is
the rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many,
most or all personal firearms are more of a liability to society
than a benefit, then there will be change.

Oddly enough, the only people I know that believe the Feds could
actually confiscate all firearms are the very far over "absolutists"
who also seem to be afraid of mostly everything - Muslims, welfare
cheats, the Federal government, fluoridation, commies, mandatory
vaccinations, CFL bulbs, etc. Why else would they need so much
firepower and 100 round drum magazines? In their minds, their
enemies are many, massive, always poised to attack and very well
armed.

## Why?
1. Because they're 'cool' looking
2. Investment
3. Historical artifact
4. Fun
5. Marksmanship
6. Sport
And most importantly,
7. Because they want them


That's a tall order barring total confiscation from civilians. I
just don't see that *ever* happening in America. The question for
the next decade will be one of just exactly *where* people are
allowed to bring their guns and whether the "stand you ground"
state-level initiatives get pushed back. Eventually guns will be made
much safer and perhaps will only work in the hands of someone with an
RF activating ring.

## Which means the gun cannot be used by the cop's partner. Total
non-starter.


When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.

Most gun owners *do* play nice. That's why they're so up in arms
(groan). They don't want to be punished for the misdeeds of a very,
very small number of shi+ stomping crazies. Who would? Punishing
the wrong people (or the easy to punish people) never works in the
long run, at least not with a free society.

My own personal philosophy is that these events are tragedies like
tornadoes or traffic accidents. They are rare enough that it's
foolish to devote endless resources to prevent them. We can work to
lessen their impact when they do occur, but we're apparently going to
have to learn to live with them. America is a gun nation full of
angry people, some of whom, for whatever reason, cross the line and
get so angry that they kill their fellow citizens by the dozens.
That won't change until we know a lot more about the reasons for
people's behavior and how to modify that behavior than we do know.

## Yep. While the tragedy surrounding a mass shooting is regrettable, it is
the price we must pay for the freedom to own firearms.


The best we can hope for is a reduction in gun deaths the way we've
reduced automobile fatalities considerably over the years. Gun
fatalities should be equally reducible as well. Unfortunately I'm
afraid that with the NRA working to weaken existing carry laws across
the nation, the gun fatality rate will climb rather than decline in
the short run. More guns mean more firearm accidents and fistfights
that end in homicide.

## It's not just the NRA. In my state, bills have been introduced to permit
open carry, cancel the bans on guns in schools, and more. Far as I know, the
NRA is not involved in some 30-odd bills introduced so far.


The thing that really bothers me about the current gun control crisis
is that we essentially let the actions of madmen dictate the course
of history. From John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was the
St. Valentine's Day Massacre that prompted the National Firearms Act.
Look at how the suicidal mass murderers of 9/11 changed American
history. That's just not right. We really ought to restrain
ourselves from setting national policy based on the acts of the
criminally insane, Muslim martyrs or any other class of mass murderer.

## It is a well-established concept in the theory of law that laws passed to
deal with a specific event are almost always bad laws.



The Sullivan law in NYC was passed in 1911 one year after the Mayor
William Gaynor was shot and later died. Some new laws will be passed
at the state level because of Newtown, but I don't see Feinstein
making much progress on an assault weapons ban.

## Feinstein doesn't want to ban guns; she wants the issue.

On 1/28/13 8:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:

## Feinstein doesn't want to ban guns; she wants the issue.


Feinstein had a gun permit for awhile:
http://tinyurl.com/aze9tvs
The link goes to Breitbart.com

They quote her as saying
"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel, I know the urge to
arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I
walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed
weapon. I made the determination that if someone was going to try to
take me out, I was going to take them with me. "

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:32:08 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference,
I'm certainly willing to try. Even a mediocre marksman should be
able to neutralize a burglar with 7 rounds.

## Ah, but what if there are TWO burglars?


Or three...

"A 33-year old mother took matters into her own hands when three men
broke into her house in Magnolia, TX on Friday night while she and her
6-year old child were home alone.

The mother grabbed her pistol, and when the men found her she had the
gun pointed at them. She shot at them, causing them to flee the house.
She thinks she hit one of the intruders."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/28/Mother-Stops-Three-Burglars-With-Her-Pistol

The International Council of Burglars supports magazine capacity
limitation (haven't your heard).

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:27:02 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:48:06 -0500, wrote:

*WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

... and people pay taxes to be told what to do in those states.

Nevada is gun friendly - I like it.

That's a start, but it's not an end-all. Vermont was gun friendly,
too.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:10 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

Now you're getting it.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

Exactly, until the fed kills the states.

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 5:48 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before
70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm
from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law
was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take
the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. *WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.
#
# didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
# that it probably is not a federal one.

That does suggest that you should do some more checking before making any
more of your ex cathedra declarations.
mmm ?


#
# So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
# more amenable state.
#

As has been evidence by the migration out of California, for example.

On Jan 28, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:10 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

Now you're getting it.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

Exactly, until the fed kills the states.

This morning I woke up understanding your point about the use of "we".

Had I instead said, "It is my understanding that there are laws in
place....instead of "we have laws..." you would NOT have commented.

My sloppy speech pattern sounded as though I embrace those laws,
endorse laws that I do NOT endorse.

Thanks for the slap. Communication is a skill and sadly I am wanting
in that ability.Got to pay attention to nuances.

On Jan 29, 6:33*am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
...snip...
That does suggest that you should do some more checking before making any
more of your ex cathedra declarations.

Is that from the Papal throne, or what you perceive as my throne?

You should have more sense of the importance of yourself

Here is another ex cathedra: As long as you are good, you are
important.

From reviewing your posts, it is apparent that you have cognitive
logic, and energetic zeal. Sadly seems to be a lot of negative
comments. Have you applied that energy to building, creating? What
have you accomplished?

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder.

I'm looking at what happens (or doesn't happen) at the point-of-sale.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

There's clearly an attraction to the assault rifle format for some of the
Rambo wannabes that go on killing sprees with them.

So how many of those killing sprees took place in the last few years with
"assault rifle format" rifles by "Rambo wannabes"
Don't forget to give us a percentage compared to ALL such sprees..
It'sd just that we want to make sure what numbers we are really talking
about, instead of just some fictino by the gun-control nuts.

I am not sure that
banning them, though, will dissuade any truly psychotic gunman from his
mission of killing a lot of people. Mass murderers have been able to
inflict some phenomenal damage with even semi-automatic pistols since
Howard
Unruh mowed down 13 people with his Luger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

The Luger was designed in 1898 so it's clear even old weapons can do a lot
of damage.


Yup
One of the reasons so much damage takes place is because with only one
exception. the Gaby Gifford shooting, ALL the other sprees took place in
"Gun Free Zones", with an assortment of arms, of which most were NOT
"assault rifle format"


snip silly nonsense about trying to disassemble gun during an attack


Banning assault rifles is pointless because it's easier for a killer to
enter deep into a mass of people armed with pistols than with assault
rifles
or other long guns and the rate of fire can be just as high or higher.
Just
from simple inspection, an assault rifle should be harder to take away
from
the shooter because it's compact and usually has an extra grip. But
again,
that advantage doesn't seem terribly important when you acknowledge how
many
mass killings were perpetrated without assault rifles. The compelling
issue
concerning successful neutralization of mass killers *in progress* seems
to
be magazine capacity, not gun type.


Why not just have armed citizens shoot these "Rambo wannabe"
After all armed citizens shoot more than double the number of bad guys
police do.
And they don't seem to need very specialized training a la Secret Service,
to get their thumbs behind the hammer to do it.


It's just that your *point* makes no sense.

I'm asking a question that nobody seems to want to answer.

The question raises the point about why some people might want to buy
certain types of rifles.

I recently had this discussion with a retired bird colonel and lifelong
marksman from the Army the other day and surprisingly he was of the
opinion
that the shape of the gun and its glorification in all sorts of media
*does*
attract precisely the wrong person. He said "if you feel you just have to
have an assault rifle, you probably shouldn't be allowed to own one." (-:
I personally don't believe any mass murderer will just give up if he can't
get an AR-15. He'll settle for less. I'm guessing your average crazed
mass
murderer would prefer to have two semi-automatic pistols than one assault
rifle.


Amazing the nimber of people who while ignorant are quite willing to ascribe
all kinds of complex reasons to other people's motivations, when much
simpler ones are available.

I believe Feinstein is screwing up royally trying to get the assault ban
passed (the loud thud you heard was Trader fainting and hitting the
floor).
It's just more divisive partisan crap that won't solve the problem but
will
further polarize America. O read through NY new law and it seems to be
not
much more than a "pile on" law to enable prosecutors to add charges to any
gun incident. Someone with ingenuity could make a flash suppressor with a
hose clamp and a paper towel tube if they had to.


Yup
Brings back the simple point that someone with intent will IGNORE any laws
on the books



While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference, I'm
certainly willing to try.

You are more than free to do so for YOURSELF
But who gave you the right to make that decision for others ?
Particularly when there is NO EVIDENCE to justify or support such a decision
as being workable or effective


Even a mediocre marksman should be able to neutralize a burglar with 7
rounds.

LOL
Then you need to realize some simple truths
1) Under stress, even good marksmen can miss.
And can do so repeatedly
2) Data shows us that police, even with all their alleged professional
training, tend to go into "spray and pray" mode far more often than
justified.
3) Data shows us that even though citizens shoot more than twice as many
crimianls as police do, nonetheless, police shoot almost SIX TIMES as many
innocent bystanders as police do.
Maybe it's the police that need to go into Barney Fife loading
rules.


People who feel they can't live without 30+ rounds per magazine
are pretty clearly intent on killing a lot of people very quickly.

TOTAL IGNORANT CROCK based on a lie
1) It's NOT about "people who FEEL they CAN'T LIVE without 30+
rounds per magazine...
IT's NOT about "can't live
It's about CHOOSE NOT TO
2) The claim that they are "intent on killing a lot of people" is also
COMPLETE BULL****
With all the large capacity magazines out there, according to your
stupid presumption, there are a LOT "of people intent on killing a lot of
people" out there
If your BULL**** had even an IOTA of truth, there would be mass
killings on a daily basis.
3) Cops are also equipped with large magazines for BOTH their handguns
and rifles.
Are they also "intent on killing a lot of people" ?
4) Magazine size, does not speed you up that much either way.
With practice you can fire about as many shots using 3 10-rounders
as 1 30-rounder

The above stupid commentary Just makes you come across as a compete fool

\
They're the ones society needs to worry about.
They're already pretty anti-socially oriented.

Not really.
I believe that ignorant idiots like you, ascribing all kinds of stupdi
motivations to others, to justify your bigoted ignorance, are FAR MORE
dangerous to society
Particularly when a whole bunch of like minded-idiots like you try to make
your bigoted ignorance into laws..


It doesn't take much to push at least some of them way over the line.


Too bad, ignorant bigots like you are even harder to push toward intellgent
thought.
The problem being is that you imagine ****e like the above to actually be
true,



If you examine gun laws and public opinion neutrally (and it's very hard
to
do because both sides have invented their own irrefutable yet very dubious
"statistics") you'll find the restrictions almost always come about after
a
public massacre takes place. The willingness of Americans to accept the
draconian gun laws came about from incidents like this:

On July 28, 1931, it was alleged that Coll unsuccessfully attempted to
kidnap Joey Rao, a Schultz underling. A shootout ensued, and a crowd of
children were caught in the crossfire. A five-year-old child, Michael
Vengalli,[3] died after being shot in the abdomen; several other children
were wounded. After this atrocity, New York City Mayor Jimmy Walker dubbed
Coll "Mad Dog".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Dog_Coll#Aftermath

There's a reason why Chicago and NYC have (had?) some of the toughest gun
laws in the country. During the '30s when Col. Thompson's "gun to end all
crime" - the Tommy Gun - became widely adopted by cops and crooks alike,
drive by shootings were killing dozens of innocent bystanders. Citizens
got
very tired of it and the laws limiting ownership of such weapons arose.
That process could be happening again, only this time the focus is on
high-capacity, high rate of fire weapons that rival the Tommy gun's
lethality.

Just goes to show that stupid laws are passed because stupid people beat the
drum and spout ignorant cant
And the politicians, will then pass stupid laws in the heat of the moment
Just look at the ban/confiscation of handguns in the UK following Dumblane.
The situation got worse NOT better as an result.



You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals.

There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.


Indeed
ALL murderers are criminals
But NOT all criminals are murderes


I'd say there's a difference between a criminal and a madman. The gun
lobby
is right in saying that a very particular type of *person* not *weapon* is
the real issue, at least when it comes to mass murderers like Adam Lanza.
Some hope that universal health care could help identify guys like Lanza
before they act, but sadly many mass shooters had plenty of contact with
mental health authorities prior to their rampages to no avail. These
shooters are often quite loony (a precise medical term g) but cunning.
They are not likely to be prevented from killing by psychiatry because we
don't yet (much) punish people for what they might do.

If someone is locked up for making threats, they often go after whomever
they felt turned them in as soon as they are released from protective
custody. Plenty of women have died with a newly issued protective order
in
their purse. Something like that may have happened with Adam Lanza - some
news reports say his mother might have been trying to commit him and he
killed her and quite a few more because of it. I am not sure if we'll
ever
know what really went on - the only witnesses are dead.

All it's going to do is **** off the 99.99% of legal gun owners.

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners are going to have to realize
that society is reaching the point where they will not tolerate the
abuse, murder, injury and death being performed upon them by guns so
that others can "enjoy" the right to possess these same guns.


Funny how the same people who make such claims completely ignore cars which
cause FAR MORE CARNAGE on a daily basis on our roads
It's really not about guns, but about controlling people with guns WHO HAVE
DONE NOTHING WRONG simply because the wannabe controllers fear them for no
justified reason.


My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit that
a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet
to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:


There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE To support the silly notion that smaller
magazines would have ANY effect
It's PURE UNFOUNDED SUPPOSITION

I have yet to hear A SINGLE argument for reduced magazine capacity that is
based on anything close to reality
It's the old "It MAY work, so let's just do it and hope for the best" crap.

1 - "Because I wanna"

Indeed
And it seems to **** people like you off that others feel that way

2 - "Because I might have to kill a LOT of people"

NOPE
That's YOUR strawman argument
And by the way, how do you think a 7-round restriction would have worked in
this circumstance ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0
Funny how people like you ignore FACTS when they don't line up with your
prejudices.


3 - "It's the first step in total confiscation"


And history has repeatedly shown us that gun-controllers are more than happy
to use incrementalism over time to lead to confiscation
England did it recently with handguns
Funny how people like you ignore history when it doesn't suit your purpose.


None of those reasons strikes me as anything to set national policy on.

Yet your only argument is some vague unfounded hope that it may work..
That's REALLY not an excuse to set national policy on..


More importantly, the fact that Jarod Loughner, who shot Rep. Giffords and
the LIRR shooter, Colin Ferguson were both tackled and disarmed during a
magazine change tells me there could be a significant payback by reducing
magazine capacity to WWII infantry levels. Lots of police chiefs quietly
support limits on capacity because it's their people who often end up
facing
madmen with high capacity firearms.


All SUPPOSTION wrapped in hope.
NO DATA to hold your position

How long do you think Loughner would have lasted if there actually had been
someone armed in that crowd, willing to shoot Loughner to stop him
The same is true for ALL "Gun Free Zones"
We have examples such as Pearl High School, Appalachian Law School, and
other tlo support the notion, that spree shooters can be and are stopped bu
armed citizens


The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is the
rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many, most or all
personal firearms are more of a liability to society than a benefit,
then there will be change.


FALSE
The US is a Constitutional Republic SPECIFICALY because the Framers knew
that "democracy" easily descents into mob rule of the majority.



I wouldn't count on the majority swinging to an outright assault rifle ban
unless there are several more elementary school massacres. Instead,
states
will draw lines like they did before the Civil War. This time it will be
gun ownership and not slave ownership that divides them, but the process
is
well underway and following many of the old geographical boundaries.

LOL
People are already voting with their feet for such places as Chicago,
Washington D.C., NYC and now NYS.

What really bothers me is out-of-state groups like the NRA coming into
local
elections to try to affect the outcome. State elections should be limited
to state residents, not outside pressure groups.


When the anti-gunners hew to such a rule you might have a leg to stand on.



Oddly enough, the only people I know that believe the Feds could actually
confiscate all firearms are the very far over "absolutists" who also seem
to
be afraid of mostly everything - Muslims, welfare cheats, the Federal
government, fluoridation, commies, mandatory vaccinations, CFL bulbs, etc.
Why else would they need so much firepower and 100 round drum magazines?
In
their minds, their enemies are many, massive, always poised to attack and
very well armed.


Stupid projections and fantasies ascribed to those who oppose you are just
that stupid projections and fantasies.
They are simply your attempt to claim a superiority, that you can NOT claim
otherwise.

A loser tactic.
And it tells far more about such as you than those you denigrate in such
fashion.



Gun advocates need to start paying attention to the problem and need to
come up with a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy,
insane, angry, autistic or suicidal people. ESPECIALLY people young
people.

That's a tall order barring total confiscation from civilians. I just
don't
see that *ever* happening in America. The question for the next decade
will
be one of just exactly *where* people are allowed to bring their guns and
whether the "stand you ground" state-level initiatives get pushed back.
Eventually guns will be made much safer and perhaps will only work in the
hands of someone with an RF activating ring. If you've ever seen the
devices they attach to the cars of people convicted for DUI's you'll know
that there's plenty of technology that can be applied to the problem.
Most
people could adequately defend themselves with a Taser when you get down
to
looking at actual cases concerning gun uses for self-defense.



LOL
Good luck with that pipe dream...

If the irresponsible people can't be stopped from getting their hands on
guns, and if gun activists, enthusiasts and hobbiests don't want to play
a constructive role, then *everybody* pays a price.


Funny how we can say EXACTLY that about cars
When will you bozos start addressing that issue
After all for the same number of cars and guns in the country.
Cars are used to cause 43,000+ accidental deaths vs 600+ with guns


That's an interesting point because very few people are paying the price.
The pain is not shared. Newtown is in a sad way just like the AfRaq wars.
Only a very few families actually make any kind of sacrifice. It's very
hard to stop a juggernaut that's not affecting everyone equally. There's
declining human empathy in the world, IMHO, so the parents of those 20
kids
are really on their own. It may be the natural result of an ever-more
complex and overwhelming world where it's almost impossible to look out
for
your own interests. That impersonal world could very easily be the
incubator for the seemingly endless crop of mass killers we have reaped
recently. Obviously more research is needed. Maybe the NRA will get
brave
enough to let that happen.



That's because the blood-dancing gun controllers are trying to make a big
stink about a one-off event, all the while ignoring the fact that the same
kind of carnage occurs nearly every two weeks in Chicago.
This is really NOT about addressing the problem.
It's about using a massacre to justify more gun-control.


When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.


Maybe we should take away your intenet access
After all dancing in the blood of innocents to push your gun-control agenda
can not be considered "playing nice" by ANY means...


Most gun owners *do* play nice. That's why they're so up in arms (groan).
They don't want to be punished for the misdeeds of a very, very small
number
of shi+ stomping crazies. Who would? Punishing the wrong people (or the
easy to punish people) never works in the long run, at least not with a
free
society.


Too bad that gun-controllers don't seem to grasp that concept
And it's why people who are pro 2nd Amendment are not going to take it
anymore
They have tried to play nice over the last 80 years
And what did it get them ?
Incremental infringement on their rights
Denigration'
Lies
False promises of this is the last restriction
And other bull****.

They have been playing "nice", while the gun-controllers have been lying,
denigrating and dancing in the blood of innocent victims..



My own personal philosophy is that these events are tragedies like
tornadoes
or traffic accidents. They are rare enough that it's foolish to devote
endless resources to prevent them. We can work to lessen their impact
when
they do occur, but we're apparently going to have to learn to live with
them. America is a gun nation full of angry people, some of whom, for
whatever reason, cross the line and get so angry that they kill their
fellow
citizens by the dozens. That won't change until we know a lot more about
the reasons for people's behavior and how to modify that behavior than we
do
know.

It seems to take casualty levels like we saw during the Vietnam War

affecting people across the nation to mobilize real social action. I
don't
want to think about how many elementary school massacres it might take to
get people to support an assault rifle ban.

The best we can hope for is a reduction in gun deaths the way we've
reduced
automobile fatalities considerably over the years.

LOL
What an ignorant crock
If car fatalities had decreased at the same rate that accidental gun deaths
have decreased over the last decades, we would be at 22,000 or so car
accident deaths instead of 43,000+


Gun fatalities should be equally reducible as well.


They have been decreasing, while the opposite is true for car fatalities..
This is another on of those lies by gun-controllers and their sycophants.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that with the NRA
working to weaken existing carry laws across the nation, the gun fatality
rate will climb rather than decline in the short run. More guns mean more
firearm accidents and fistfights that end in homicide.

TOo bad for your FALSE prediction that the opposite is true
Gun ownership has INCREASED and gun accidents have DECREASED
Too bad you can't say the same for car fatalities



The thing that really bothers me about the current gun control crisis is
that we essentially let the actions of madmen dictate the course of
history.
From John Wilkes Booth to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was the St. Valentine's
Day
Massacre that prompted the National Firearms Act. Look at how the
suicidal
mass murderers of 9/11 changed American history. That's just not right.
We
really ought to restrain ourselves from setting national policy based on
the
acts of the criminally insane, Muslim martyrs or any other class of mass
murderer.


You forgot to mention ignoramuses like yourself, who pontificate out of
sheer ignorance and fantasy that has NOTHING to do with the facts


Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.

Anyone who's been the victim of a crime, particularly a violent one, would
disagree. It's why gun control legislation is almost certainly doomed to
fail, except perhaps for a mega-magazine ban. NY's 7 round limit isn't
realistic but it will give us a chance to see if in 20 years it had any
measurable effect on mass killings.

It won't
They have been restricted in California for quite a while with NO MEASURABLE
effect
And only fools keep doing the same thing over and over while hoping that
THIS TIME, it will give better resutls



I, for one, doubt it unless they build a 30' concrete wall around the
state.
As Mexico shows, tough gun laws mean
nothing if guns can be easily smuggled in to criminals from a place like
the
US where the Mexican-banned weapon types are readily available.


Most guns in Mexico come from elsewhere than the US
Another fact that you can't get straight


The Sullivan law in NYC was passed in 1911 one year after the Mayor
William
Gaynor was shot and later died. Some new laws will be passed at the state
level because of Newtown, but I don't see Feinstein making much progress
on
an assault weapons ban.


I would suggest that if any laws are passed, it will be because ignorant
people such as you will continue the hopey-changey strategy that has been
the hallmark of gun-controllers for decades
Fortunately there is now ample data to show that that all the hopey-changey
mindset, which gun-controllers exhibit can be easily shot down.

If you want to improve your knowledge and stop doing the hopey-changey
thing, I would suggest you start educating yourself
Here's a good place to start.
http://gunfacts.info/

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

## You make some interesting points. Please see imbedded comments.



Banning assault rifles is pointless because it's easier for a killer
to enter deep into a mass of people armed with pistols than with
assault rifles or other long guns and the rate of fire can be just as
high or higher. Just from simple inspection, an assault rifle should
be harder to take away from the shooter because it's compact and
usually has an extra grip. But again, that advantage doesn't seem
terribly important when you acknowledge how many mass killings were
perpetrated without assault rifles. The compelling issue concerning
successful neutralization of mass killers *in progress* seems to be
magazine capacity, not gun type.


## In my view, the successful neutralization of a shooter takes place when
a potential victim has the ability to shoot back. Note that EVERY single
mass shooting since 1950 (with possibly one exception) took place in a
"Gun Free" zone.



While I am not convinced banning "megamags" would make a difference,
I'm certainly willing to try. Even a mediocre marksman should be
able to neutralize a burglar with 7 rounds.

## Ah, but what if there are TWO burglars?


What if your dealing with for as in this case ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

People who feel they
can't live without 30+ rounds per magazine are pretty clearly intent
on killing a lot of people very quickly.

## Not necessarily, but I'll agree they are intent on killing at least one
goblin very dead.


BZZZT
Wrong again
They are INTENDING to STOP a goblin or goblins in their tracks.

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 29, 6:33 am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
...snip...
That does suggest that you should do some more checking before making any
more of your ex cathedra declarations.
#
# Is that from the Papal throne, or what you perceive as my throne?
#

No
It's derived from the nonsense that you posted previously

#
# You should have more sense of the importance of yourself
#

I have a pretty good idea of my "importance" with respect to all kinds of
measures


# Here is another ex cathedra: As long as you are good, you are
# important.


So you really are an empty suit, only suitable for spouting trivialities ?
How sad.

#
# From reviewing your posts, it is apparent that you have cognitive
# logic, and energetic zeal. Sadly seems to be a lot of negative
# comments. Have you applied that energy to building, creating? What
# have you accomplished?

Probably a lot more than you have
But since I'm not intereting in such comparisons, nor do I feel the need for
such, you shall remain ignorant on that issue
You can add that to the list of other issues on which you have demonstrated
your ignorance

One can hope that in the future, you will put some effort in correcting such
shortcomings

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:54:20 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:10 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

Now you're getting it.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

Exactly, until the fed kills the states.

This morning I woke up understanding your point about the use of "we".

Had I instead said, "It is my understanding that there are laws in
place....instead of "we have laws..." you would NOT have commented.

My sloppy speech pattern sounded as though I embrace those laws,
endorse laws that I do NOT endorse.

Thanks for the slap. Communication is a skill and sadly I am wanting
in that ability.Got to pay attention to nuances.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:54:20 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy
wrote:

On Jan 28, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:44:10 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy





wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:48*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:50:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:35*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 06:56:38 -0800 (PST), Robert Macy

wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:13*pm, wrote:
...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' *Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
all live with that law.

Refusal to answer the question noted.

Huh? ...again, the we refers to fellow U.S. citizens.

Then you're full of ****. **WE* do *NOT* all live under the same laws.
These are states issues. *I don't happen to live in a state that I
must cower in a corner hoping the moron doesn't decide to kill me. *He
crosses my threshold (doesn't even need to go that far) and he's
pushing daisies. *I really don't give two ****s if he has a knife or a
toothpick. *If you live in a candy-assed Europeon wannabe state, your
problem.

Unless there was
a bit of humor in your question that eluded me.and still eludes me.

No, I was wondering just how FOS you were but you've made it perfectly
clear.

didn't know that this specific law was a state law only. makes sense
that it probably is not a federal one.

Now you're getting it.

So at least a citizen can still vote with their feet and move to a
more amenable state.

Exactly, until the fed kills the states.

This morning I woke up understanding your point about the use of "we".

;-)

Had I instead said, "It is my understanding that there are laws in
place....instead of "we have laws..." you would NOT have commented.

No, really, I didn't know if you were including me in your "we" or if
you were talking about your family. I might have, even if stated that
way. If you'd stated the location (or "here"), I wouldn't have,
except perhaps to say that it sucks to be you. ;-)

My sloppy speech pattern sounded as though I embrace those laws,
endorse laws that I do NOT endorse.

Thanks for the clarification. It did seem that way. ... jus' trying
to keep the scoreboard straight. ;-)

Thanks for the slap. Communication is a skill and sadly I am wanting
in that ability.Got to pay attention to nuances.

"Oren" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit
that a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet
to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:


I'll take a stab.

1 - "Because I wanna"

I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.

The real question, Ms. Oren, g is "who are you intending to kill (at a
distance - rifles are not so good in close quarters) that you need 30 rounds
to do it?" Wouldn't a 14 round Glock do? Or probably even a 7 round one?
Are these armed multiple attackers in body armor? Do they not halt their
advance like most rational humans under a hail of bullets? What needs 30
rounds to kill?

Perhaps an ex-prison guard faces that kind of really remote threat but as
the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." A
high-powered rifle's swing is mighty long, wouldn't you say?

Thirty rounds of rifle ammunition could kill *a lot* of people. Those
rounds could come out of the AR-15 of my neighbor "Betty Bad Shot" and come
through my window. I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger Mini14 with a 30
round clip. Will I ever need it? Very, very doubtful. When I hear a noise
late at night, I go with the Glock. I should be able to take care of any
threat I've ever encountered with a Glock and a standard sized magazine.
Would I give up the hicap mag for the Mini14? In a heartbeat if it were the
national law. Would I give up the gun itself? Nope. Different story.

The reason is simple. One common element of a number of recent gun
tragedies is the high capacity magazine. And it's the *only* factor that
can be pointed to as having reliably limited the carnage of at least three
shootings *in progress* when those three shooters were tackled while
changing magazines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his
pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.
Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding
chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.
Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired United States Army
Colonel Bill Badger who had been shot himself.

Several lives could have been saved if Loughner was using standard magazines
and had to change sooner. I want to give American heroes like Maisch and
Badger every edge they can get when faced with a madman shooter. Limiting
the size of civilian magazines can do that. Bigger magazines just mean more
people killed before there's an opportunity to tackle the shooter. That's
been irrevocably proven with the results written in blood.

The NRA's inflexibility on the subject could prove the old adage "The willow
bends in winds that break the mighty oak tree." The recent polls indicate
that independent voters are siding with the Democrats on the issue of
compromise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...ho-compromise/

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:11:29 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:21:31 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

My issue with the 2nd Amendment absolutists is their refusal to admit
that a
smaller magazine capacity might just reduce future body counts. I've yet
to
hear justifications for 30 round magazines that don't resolve into three
fairly unconvincing groups:


I'll take a stab.

1 - "Because I wanna"

I'm a woman (not really). The AR-15 is very light and highly
accurate, easier to handle than an 860 Remington pump with a 36"
barrel (they are heavy ended), and I shoot a tight pattern at a
variety of distances.

The real question, Ms. Oren, g is "who are you intending to kill (at a
distance - rifles are not so good in close quarters) that you need 30 rounds
to do it?" Wouldn't a 14 round Glock do? Or probably even a 7 round one?
Are these armed multiple attackers in body armor? Do they not halt their
advance like most rational humans under a hail of bullets? What needs 30
rounds to kill?


The point was that a female, using an AR-15 and 30 rounds has a better
chance of protecting herself from armed intruders without having to
change mags in the middle of an assault. What if she has a Glock with
14 rounds and the attackers have more Glocks?

Perhaps an ex-prison guard faces that kind of really remote threat but as
the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." A
high-powered rifle's swing is mighty long, wouldn't you say?


Collapsible stocks reduce the length of the weapon, which allows a
female to better handle the rifle. I've seen a man that was shot 5
times in the chest by FBI/DEA and live to visit my jail when he came
out of the hospital. How the man was still alive shocked me.

Thirty rounds of rifle ammunition could kill *a lot* of people. Those
rounds could come out of the AR-15 of my neighbor "Betty Bad Shot" and come
through my window. I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger Mini14 with a 30
round clip. Will I ever need it? Very, very doubtful. When I hear a noise
late at night, I go with the Glock. I should be able to take care of any
threat I've ever encountered with a Glock and a standard sized magazine.
Would I give up the hicap mag for the Mini14? In a heartbeat if it were the
national law. Would I give up the gun itself? Nope. Different story.


So you seem to be saying that you legally own a "hicap" mag, then the
government declares them illegal, it makes one a criminal?

The reason is simple. One common element of a number of recent gun
tragedies is the high capacity magazine. And it's the *only* factor that
can be pointed to as having reliably limited the carnage of at least three
shootings *in progress* when those three shooters were tackled while
changing magazines.


These shootings were conducted by *violent* mentally ill people. Not
all metal patients are violent. The violent mentally ill can be forced
into "civil confinement", but you cannot "force" one with non-violent
mental issues into a facility -- UNTIL he digresses into violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his
pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.
Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding
chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.
Loughner was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired United States Army
Colonel Bill Badger who had been shot himself.

Several lives could have been saved if Loughner was using standard magazines
and had to change sooner. I want to give American heroes like Maisch and
Badger every edge they can get when faced with a madman shooter. Limiting
the size of civilian magazines can do that. Bigger magazines just mean more
people killed before there's an opportunity to tackle the shooter. That's
been irrevocably proven with the results written in blood.


That shooter bought his weapons "legally". There are over 100,000
people in Arizona that belong in the computer system to prevent them
from buying guns. There is the rub.

The NRA's inflexibility on the subject could prove the old adage "The willow
bends in winds that break the mighty oak tree." The recent polls indicate
that independent voters are siding with the Democrats on the issue of
compromise.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...ho-compromise/

Here Robert:

"Judge Jeanine: Banning weapons to prevent crime doesn't work"

"We need to prosecute gun crimes and confine the dangerously mentally
ill"

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/justice-jeanine/index.html#/v/2138468100001/judge-jeanine-banning-weapons-to-prevent-crime-doesnt-work/?playlist_id=163706

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:42:17 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

*I've "inherited" a laser sighted Ruger Mini14 with a 30
round clip. Will I ever need it? *Very, very doubtful.

There you have it folks, the limousine liberal. HE
can have one and it's not killing his neighbors. But if you
or I want one, well that should be illegal.

I believe a blind man should have an AR-15 and a 30 round mag!

Even if he misses with 5 rounds, he still has comfort with his last 25
rounds.

--
Molon labe