[Bod[_3_]]

A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll
--
Bod

[Bod[_3_]]

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

--
Bod

[devnull[_4_]]

On 9/11/19 5:52 AM, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55 percent of Americans said they feared a
mass shooting.


Your irrational fear of guns makes you sound like a snowflake. Are you a snowflake?

[Bod[_3_]]

On 11/09/2019 11:03, devnull wrote:
On 9/11/19 5:52 AM, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background
checks for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.


Your irrational fear of guns makes you sound like a snowflake. Are you a
snowflake?

Fear? the hypocrisy! 60% of Americans fear a mass shooting (with guns).


--
Bod

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.

Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2019 04:03 AM, devnull wrote:
On 9/11/19 5:52 AM, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background
checks for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.


Your irrational fear of guns makes you sound like a snowflake. Are you a
snowflake?

I have noticed an increase of paranoia. As I walked to Target a man of
apparent middle-Eastern descent with a backpack and what looked like a
long gym bag was ahead of me. He entered Target and a woman who was also
entering called him to the attention of a Target employee near the
entrance. The employee replied 'He's okay, he's a regular' so he's
apparently a homeless person who uses the facilities near the entrance
and doesn't cause problems.

Let's just say I was yellow going on orange...

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:34:35 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.

Cindy Hamilton

We'll see what Trump does. McConnell has put Trump in the hot spot, saying
that he will bring up any bill that Trump will support for a vote. Trump is
stuck. He's divided the country so badly, appealing only to his trumpet
base, to the point that's all he has. So, if he does anything on gun control,
what's the upside and downside for Trump? If he does something, he will
for sure alienate a good portion of his already narrow base. And because
of how polarized he's made things, it's very unlikely to gain him any votes
from people who want the gun legislation passed. So, as I see it, from a
purely self-interest standpoint, Trump would want to not pass anything.
But then he's nuts and unpredictable, so we'll have to wait and see.
At most it sounds like they would close the private sale loophole and I also
have heard talk about requiring that anyone that tries to buy a gun and
who fails the fed check be immediately reported to the police.

You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

AFAIK, nothing much really happens. IDK who's charter it is, ATF maybe.
But from all I've seen, you try to buy a gun, you fail, which in probably
90%+ of the cases it's because you have a felony record, and nothing
apparently happens. That is something that Trump could lobby for and fix.





I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.


You're not going to do a reasonable background check in just 3 days.
What's the big rush?

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:52:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.


It is media inflicted mass hysteria. You really have a better chance
of getting hit by lightning than being killed by a mass shooter unless
you hang out on inner city drug corners late at night.
It is still unclear that background checks would have stopped any of
these shooters. Even the last guy is pretty shaky. We are still
waiting for the result of the raid and investigation but if he was an
illegal gun manufacturer, as the news portrays him, it is unlikely
that he would have gone to the police station to document the sale of
an illegal gun.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:34:35 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.

Cindy Hamilton

We'll see what Trump does. McConnell has put Trump in the hot spot, saying
that he will bring up any bill that Trump will support for a vote. Trump is
stuck. He's divided the country so badly, appealing only to his trumpet
base, to the point that's all he has. So, if he does anything on gun control,
what's the upside and downside for Trump? If he does something, he will
for sure alienate a good portion of his already narrow base. And because
of how polarized he's made things, it's very unlikely to gain him any votes
from people who want the gun legislation passed. So, as I see it, from a
purely self-interest standpoint, Trump would want to not pass anything.
But then he's nuts and unpredictable, so we'll have to wait and see.
At most it sounds like they would close the private sale loophole and I also
have heard talk about requiring that anyone that tries to buy a gun and
who fails the fed check be immediately reported to the police.

You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.

I imagine the cops would point out, a lot of these fails are false
hits so there was nothing to prosecute. I do agree that if it is true
that the last guy failed the background check for valid reason, it
should have triggered something. He might have been in jail instead of
shooting up the town.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:34:35 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.

Cindy Hamilton

We'll see what Trump does. McConnell has put Trump in the hot spot, saying
that he will bring up any bill that Trump will support for a vote. Trump is
stuck. He's divided the country so badly, appealing only to his trumpet
base, to the point that's all he has. So, if he does anything on gun control,
what's the upside and downside for Trump? If he does something, he will
for sure alienate a good portion of his already narrow base. And because
of how polarized he's made things, it's very unlikely to gain him any votes
from people who want the gun legislation passed. So, as I see it, from a
purely self-interest standpoint, Trump would want to not pass anything.
But then he's nuts and unpredictable, so we'll have to wait and see.
At most it sounds like they would close the private sale loophole and I also
have heard talk about requiring that anyone that tries to buy a gun and
who fails the fed check be immediately reported to the police.

You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.

I imagine the cops would point out, a lot of these fails are false
hits so there was nothing to prosecute. I do agree that if it is true
that the last guy failed the background check for valid reason, it
should have triggered something. He might have been in jail instead of
shooting up the town.

Here's some data that shows how few are prosecuted;

https://www.capitalgazette.com/polit...0625-story.htm


The federal government referred 23,777 federal background check denials for investigation but only 95 of those were referred for prosecution and even fewer €” 25 €” resulted in prosecutions, according to fiscal 2016 and 2017 federal data. In fiscal 2016, the federal government put 9.5 million through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Maryland doesnt fare much better.

From 2016 to June 18, Maryland State Police conducted 501 enforcement actions on failed applications for qualification licenses and purchases, state data shows. Of those, only nine individuals were prosecuted in that same time frame. Five of those prosecutions were announced in 2018 by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. In 2018, the state processed 75,231 license and registration applications."

Nothing much there to show the breakdown, like how many were felons that
tried to buy a gun, but IDK how you could have 24K fails and only 95
prosecutions and 25 convictions. It's just like it was a few years ago,
when I last looked. The two ways to fail is if you have a felony record
or you've been confined to a mental facility by a court. Likely the vast
majority of the fails are not mental cases. There may be some other way to
fail, like restraining orders, I think I heard something about that might
get you on the list too.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

AFAIK, nothing much really happens. IDK who's charter it is, ATF maybe.
But from all I've seen, you try to buy a gun, you fail, which in probably
90%+ of the cases it's because you have a felony record, and nothing
apparently happens. That is something that Trump could lobby for and fix.

It should certainly be a parole violation if this was a serious crime
but I doubt those kind of guys are going into gun stores because they
have too much to lose. The Odessa guy got probation before judgement
and the charges were dropped after he did his probation. I bet he
thought he was OK. He probably didn't know his mental adjudication
would pop on the instant check.


I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.


You're not going to do a reasonable background check in just 3 days.
What's the big rush?



Do you really think a guy is going to submit a 4473 for an illegally
manufactured gun? Get real here. We are still waiting for details but
the last story I heard was the gun itself was illegal. I am curious
what happened tho. For all we know the Lubbock guy had nothing to do
with this and the ATF was just looking for a good excuse to raid him
for unrelated charges. You know damn good and well if you tell a judge
this guy may have had something to do with a mass shooting, you will
get your warrant. The silence is deafening tho. It must not be that
much of a slam dunk or we would be seeing charges by now.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:52:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.


It is media inflicted mass hysteria. You really have a better chance
of getting hit by lightning than being killed by a mass shooter unless
you hang out on inner city drug corners late at night.
It is still unclear that background checks would have stopped any of
these shooters. Even the last guy is pretty shaky. We are still
waiting for the result of the raid and investigation but if he was an
illegal gun manufacturer, as the news portrays him, it is unlikely
that he would have gone to the police station to document the sale of
an illegal gun.

Part of the problem there is the law is somewhat vague on what exactly makes one
a gun dealer. Democrat candidate Pete B said he'd change it so that
anyone that sells 6 or more guns a year is a dealer. Sounds like a good
idea to me. Otherwise a guy like this guy could be selling 25 a year
and maintain that he's not making real money from it, that it's a hobby,
not a business motive, etc. But we don't know what exactly this guy
was doing. First good question is if it was just a gun transaction or
did he know the shooter before the sale. You really have to be a grade A
moron to be regularly dealing in guns without being licensed, unless
you're only selling them to people you really know. Otherwise you run
the real risk of selling one to a bad guy and then having the ATF and
FBI up your behind. I'd strongly suspect that once that happens, it's
likely that they are going to find something to try to bust you on.

[Bob F]

On 9/11/2019 3:34 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.


Too bad that "grim reaper" (his words) McConnell won't bring any of the
House passed bills up for discussion or vote in the Senate.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:09:06 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 6:34:35 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.

Cindy Hamilton

We'll see what Trump does. McConnell has put Trump in the hot spot, saying
that he will bring up any bill that Trump will support for a vote. Trump is
stuck. He's divided the country so badly, appealing only to his trumpet
base, to the point that's all he has. So, if he does anything on gun control,
what's the upside and downside for Trump? If he does something, he will
for sure alienate a good portion of his already narrow base. And because
of how polarized he's made things, it's very unlikely to gain him any votes
from people who want the gun legislation passed. So, as I see it, from a
purely self-interest standpoint, Trump would want to not pass anything.
But then he's nuts and unpredictable, so we'll have to wait and see.
At most it sounds like they would close the private sale loophole and I also
have heard talk about requiring that anyone that tries to buy a gun and
who fails the fed check be immediately reported to the police.

You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.

I imagine the cops would point out, a lot of these fails are false
hits so there was nothing to prosecute. I do agree that if it is true
that the last guy failed the background check for valid reason, it
should have triggered something. He might have been in jail instead of
shooting up the town.

Here's some data that shows how few are prosecuted;

https://www.capitalgazette.com/polit...0625-story.htm


The federal government referred 23,777 federal background check denials for investigation but only 95 of those were referred for prosecution and even fewer €” 25 €” resulted in prosecutions, according to fiscal 2016 and 2017 federal data. In fiscal 2016, the federal government put 9.5 million through the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System.

Maryland doesnt fare much better.

From 2016 to June 18, Maryland State Police conducted 501 enforcement actions on failed applications for qualification licenses and purchases, state data shows. Of those, only nine individuals were prosecuted in that same time frame. Five of those prosecutions were announced in 2018 by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. In
2018, the state processed 75,231 license and registration applications."

Nothing much there to show the breakdown, like how many were felons that
tried to buy a gun, but IDK how you could have 24K fails and only 95
prosecutions and 25 convictions. It's just like it was a few years ago,
when I last looked. The two ways to fail is if you have a felony record
or you've been confined to a mental facility by a court. Likely the vast
majority of the fails are not mental cases. There may be some other way to
fail, like restraining orders, I think I heard something about that might
get you on the list too.

Just the fact that around 74% that were prosecuted failed to get a
conviction tends to say the cases they can make are weak. Maybe the
laws are too timid or maybe these are just refusals with little
substance. I have seen statistics about how many were simply errors
(wrong guy popped up) but I don't have it handy. I think it is close
to half tho.
It also might not be illegal for a guy like the Odessa guy with a
mental hold to actually try to buy a gun. (unlike a felon)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:24:20 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:52:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.


It is media inflicted mass hysteria. You really have a better chance
of getting hit by lightning than being killed by a mass shooter unless
you hang out on inner city drug corners late at night.
It is still unclear that background checks would have stopped any of
these shooters. Even the last guy is pretty shaky. We are still
waiting for the result of the raid and investigation but if he was an
illegal gun manufacturer, as the news portrays him, it is unlikely
that he would have gone to the police station to document the sale of
an illegal gun.

Part of the problem there is the law is somewhat vague on what exactly makes one
a gun dealer. Democrat candidate Pete B said he'd change it so that
anyone that sells 6 or more guns a year is a dealer. Sounds like a good
idea to me. Otherwise a guy like this guy could be selling 25 a year
and maintain that he's not making real money from it, that it's a hobby,
not a business motive, etc. But we don't know what exactly this guy
was doing. First good question is if it was just a gun transaction or
did he know the shooter before the sale. You really have to be a grade A
moron to be regularly dealing in guns without being licensed, unless
you're only selling them to people you really know. Otherwise you run
the real risk of selling one to a bad guy and then having the ATF and
FBI up your behind. I'd strongly suspect that once that happens, it's
likely that they are going to find something to try to bust you on.

The recurring word I see in the meager reporting on the Lubbock guy is
"manufacture" and in ATF speak that means making a receiver or other
serialized part. Of course you may not be able to trust the news to
get that right.
You can make your own gun from scratch but you can't sell it or give
it away without a manufacturer's license and assigning a serial number
to it that gets registered at ATF.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:37:26 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 9/11/2019 3:34 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

"Majority fear mathematics and don't understand statistics" would be
an equally accurate headline.

That said, I think we should tighten up gun laws nationwide, much the
way trader_4 (IIRC) thinks they should be.


Too bad that "grim reaper" (his words) McConnell won't bring any of the
House passed bills up for discussion or vote in the Senate.

He said they would vote on anything Trump would actually sign. Big
difference.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

AFAIK, nothing much really happens. IDK who's charter it is, ATF maybe.
But from all I've seen, you try to buy a gun, you fail, which in probably
90%+ of the cases it's because you have a felony record, and nothing
apparently happens. That is something that Trump could lobby for and fix.

It should certainly be a parole violation if this was a serious crime
but I doubt those kind of guys are going into gun stores because they
have too much to lose. The Odessa guy got probation before judgement
and the charges were dropped after he did his probation. I bet he
thought he was OK. He probably didn't know his mental adjudication
would pop on the instant check.

The question remains who exactly are all these tens of thousands of
people who are failing the check, why they are failing and why almost
none are prosecuted.




I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.


You're not going to do a reasonable background check in just 3 days.
What's the big rush?



Do you really think a guy is going to submit a 4473 for an illegally
manufactured gun? Get real here.

What lead you to believe I said or implied that?


We are still waiting for details but
the last story I heard was the gun itself was illegal.

I haven't seen that, only that it's all being investigated.


I am curious
what happened tho. For all we know the Lubbock guy had nothing to do
with this and the ATF was just looking for a good excuse to raid him
for unrelated charges.

Well that would be something. You're saying the gun didn't come from
him, they just picked some other guy and turned it into a big media
event with false information?



You know damn good and well if you tell a judge
this guy may have had something to do with a mass shooting, you will
get your warrant.

And if it's a lie, your evidence will get excluded, your case goes into
the toilet. Not to mention the embarassment when the media finds out
the truth.




The silence is deafening tho. It must not be that
much of a slam dunk or we would be seeing charges by now.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:50:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

AFAIK, nothing much really happens. IDK who's charter it is, ATF maybe.
But from all I've seen, you try to buy a gun, you fail, which in probably
90%+ of the cases it's because you have a felony record, and nothing
apparently happens. That is something that Trump could lobby for and fix.

It should certainly be a parole violation if this was a serious crime
but I doubt those kind of guys are going into gun stores because they
have too much to lose. The Odessa guy got probation before judgement
and the charges were dropped after he did his probation. I bet he
thought he was OK. He probably didn't know his mental adjudication
would pop on the instant check.

The question remains who exactly are all these tens of thousands of
people who are failing the check, why they are failing and why almost
none are prosecuted.

I would suggest you ask that government that you think could
accomplish something with more checks.
We already said a lot are false hits, just a guy with the same name
and that happens a lot. Then there are mental health holds and I am
not sure what law they are breaking by trying. It is illegal for a
felon to try to buy a weapon but I am not sure if there is even a law
against a person with a troubling medical history. That is fairly new
ground and most mental issues still carry the right to some privacy.
I am sure, if the press was doing their job, they would research it.
This recent shooting does pretty much demonstrate no law was going to
stop him from getting a gun since he got it from a manufacturer who
was operating illegally.
Sorry

I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.


You're not going to do a reasonable background check in just 3 days.
What's the big rush?



Do you really think a guy is going to submit a 4473 for an illegally
manufactured gun? Get real here.

What lead you to believe I said or implied that?


We are still waiting for details but
the last story I heard was the gun itself was illegal.

I haven't seen that, only that it's all being investigated.


The words used in the cut and paste that keeps getting repeated is the
gun was manufactured illegally.

"On September 4, The Wall Street Journal and news station KCBD
reported that the FBI and law enforcement in Lubbock served a search
warrant to a person of interest, suspected of illegally manufacturing
and selling the rifle in connection with the shooting."

I am curious
what happened tho. For all we know the Lubbock guy had nothing to do
with this and the ATF was just looking for a good excuse to raid him
for unrelated charges.

Well that would be something. You're saying the gun didn't come from
him, they just picked some other guy and turned it into a big media
event with false information?


I am saying they may think that is where he got the gun and I also
suspect the ATF may have been building a case against the Lubbock guy
for a while and this gave them a "reasonable cause" for a warrant they
might not have been able to get before.
The silence is deafening about the results of the raid. I haven't
heard about any charges yet and if they had a decent case, like a
direct link to the guy, I think we would have seen some by now.
The tell will be if the Lubbock guy gets charged with a number of
firearms violations but nothing directly connecting him to this
particular gun.
That would put us back at square one.



You know damn good and well if you tell a judge
this guy may have had something to do with a mass shooting, you will
get your warrant.

And if it's a lie, your evidence will get excluded, your case goes into
the toilet. Not to mention the embarassment when the media finds out
the truth.

Not really, If they can show they had other evidence that this guy was
illegally manufacturing weapons, it was in the warrant application and
they find that evidence confirmed in a raid, the case goes on. They
just don't get to charge him with accessory to the murders.
If that happens, his case may just disappear into the ether and be
settled with a plea that shows up on page 26 of the Lubbock
Avalanche-Journal if at all. Most technical firearms violations end up
with a fine, although it can be ten grand (up to 100 grand). He will
have that in lawyer fees before he even gets to court.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 9:36:48 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:50:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 1:21:14 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
You'd think that would be already going on, but sadly last time I looked,
the stats on that were stunning. It was something like out of 90,000
failing the background check, only 50 or so were prosecuted. The overwhelming
number of fails have to be because of felony records. So, a felon tries to
buy a gun, a crime, and the feds ignore it. That;s an example where the
gun rights people are right, there are laws we already have that are not
being enforced.




Exectally. It is time for the police or whatever agency is in charge to
do their job or be fired and replaced.

AFAIK, nothing much really happens. IDK who's charter it is, ATF maybe.
But from all I've seen, you try to buy a gun, you fail, which in probably
90%+ of the cases it's because you have a felony record, and nothing
apparently happens. That is something that Trump could lobby for and fix.

It should certainly be a parole violation if this was a serious crime
but I doubt those kind of guys are going into gun stores because they
have too much to lose. The Odessa guy got probation before judgement
and the charges were dropped after he did his probation. I bet he
thought he was OK. He probably didn't know his mental adjudication
would pop on the instant check.

The question remains who exactly are all these tens of thousands of
people who are failing the check, why they are failing and why almost
none are prosecuted.

I would suggest you ask that government that you think could
accomplish something with more checks.
We already said a lot are false hits, just a guy with the same name
and that happens a lot. Then there are mental health holds and I am
not sure what law they are breaking by trying.

That's a good question. In states like NJ you would have lied on the
permit for a pistol, assuming you didn't indicate there that you are
being treated for mental problems. That would be a crime, but it's
not being prosecuted. Federally, like you say, if you apply at an
FFL, IDK what you sign in states that only rely on that, if they even
ask anything, so could very likely be that you haven't committed a crime.
First problem here is we have no idea what the breakdown of those that
fail the check, what the reasons are.






It is illegal for a
felon to try to buy a weapon but I am not sure if there is even a law
against a person with a troubling medical history.

There would be here, you're asked that on the permit form and if you lie,
it's a crime. I don;t see any prosecutions though. But you only have to
do that permit for a pistol, not a long gun. For the latter all you need
is a firearms ID card, once issued it's good essentially forever, which
is another hole.




That is fairly new
ground and most mental issues still carry the right to some privacy.
I am sure, if the press was doing their job, they would research it.
This recent shooting does pretty much demonstrate no law was going to
stop him from getting a gun since he got it from a manufacturer who
was operating illegally.
Sorry

We don't know that the guy was operating illegally, at least nothing I've
seen has said that.




I have no probelm with a backgound check if it is done and completed
like is required in 3 days or less.


You're not going to do a reasonable background check in just 3 days.
What's the big rush?



Do you really think a guy is going to submit a 4473 for an illegally
manufactured gun? Get real here.

What lead you to believe I said or implied that?


We are still waiting for details but
the last story I heard was the gun itself was illegal.

I haven't seen that, only that it's all being investigated.


The words used in the cut and paste that keeps getting repeated is the
gun was manufactured illegally.


"On September 4, The Wall Street Journal and news station KCBD
reported that the FBI and law enforcement in Lubbock served a search
warrant to a person of interest, suspected of illegally manufacturing
and selling the rifle in connection with the shooting."

OK, they imply it was illegal. But the devil is in the details.
It's perfectly legal for him to build a gun and sell a gun without
being registered as long
as it's not part of a trade, business, principally with a profit
motive, etc. If he's selling ten guns a year, he could say it's a
hobby, he doesn't need to register and he could prevail.

[trader_4]

Example of why nothing gets done on gun control:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said if Republicans strike a deal with Democrats to require all firearms sales over the internet or at gun shows to go through background checks, they would demoralize their conservative base ahead of next years presidential election.

€œIf Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,€� Cruz said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, referring to the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts who is running for president."



How exactly extending the fed check to private gun sales equates to
"abandoning the Second Amendment", IDK. It will be interesting to see
how Trump tries to shyster his way on this one. One thing for sure,
if Trump says he's for it, he will support it, I sure wouldn't trust
that with my Senate career. He could do exactly what he did with healthcare,
assure the Republicans that he would sign either of two bills, that he
had their backs, then just two days later, tweet to forget about it
until after the election......

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Example of why nothing gets done on gun control:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said if Republicans strike a deal with Democrats to require all firearms sales over the internet or at gun shows to go through background checks, they would demoralize their conservative base ahead of next years presidential election.

€œIf Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,€� Cruz said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, referring to the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts who
is running for president."



How exactly extending the fed check to private gun sales equates to
"abandoning the Second Amendment", IDK. It will be interesting to see
how Trump tries to shyster his way on this one. One thing for sure,
if Trump says he's for it, he will support it, I sure wouldn't trust
that with my Senate career. He could do exactly what he did with healthcare,
assure the Republicans that he would sign either of two bills, that he
had their backs, then just two days later, tweet to forget about it
until after the election......

I guess the problem most people with their head a quarter inch out of
their ass have is most "internet" and "Gun show" transactions to get a
background check. They have booths for it at gun shows and FFL are
usually the seller on internet sales. (any site you can google) The
local transfer to the buyer is another FFL.
If you are talking about illegally manufactured guns like the guy in
Odessa, (stolen guns etc) is one more law going to stop that?

Some of these laws are written so restrictively that transfers between
family members are regulated as well is simply letting someone borrow
your gun at the range.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:38:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Example of why nothing gets done on gun control:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said if Republicans strike a deal with Democrats to require all firearms sales over the internet or at gun shows to go through background checks, they would demoralize their conservative base ahead of next years presidential election.

€œIf Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,€� Cruz said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, referring to the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts who
is running for president."



How exactly extending the fed check to private gun sales equates to
"abandoning the Second Amendment", IDK. It will be interesting to see
how Trump tries to shyster his way on this one. One thing for sure,
if Trump says he's for it, he will support it, I sure wouldn't trust
that with my Senate career. He could do exactly what he did with healthcare,
assure the Republicans that he would sign either of two bills, that he
had their backs, then just two days later, tweet to forget about it
until after the election......

I guess the problem most people with their head a quarter inch out of
their ass have is most "internet" and "Gun show" transactions to get a
background check. They have booths for it at gun shows

But no requirement for any check, if you're not a gun dealer. Since
they have the booth, what's the big Ted Cruz, Second Amendment issue?



and FFL are
usually the seller on internet sales. (any site you can google) The
local transfer to the buyer is another FFL.
If you are talking about illegally manufactured guns like the guy in
Odessa, (stolen guns etc) is one more law going to stop that?

We're talking about private sales not being subject to the background
check. I've said before, that as far as the mass shooting go, this
hasn't been a source for the weapons. But it may have been in the
case of the El Paso shooting, we don't know yet. Certainly that was
a private sale, we don't know if he violated any laws or not.
Regardless, if that
one isn't, it's only a matter of time before someone uses that hole
to get a gun for a mass shooting. I don't want to see that happen.
And the main point is, how silly and extreme do you have to be to think like
Ted Cruz that this is some Second Amendment issue, when the vast
majority of sales are going through the fed check already? It's
not clear if Cruz even believes it or if he's just knuckling under
to the gun extremists.




Some of these laws are written so restrictively that transfers between
family members are regulated as well is simply letting someone borrow
your gun at the range.

IDK which laws that would be. The bill passed by the House, the actual
law on the table, states these exemptions which exempt what you're talking about:


€˜€˜(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to€”
4 €˜€˜(A) a law enforcement agency or any law en5 forcement officer, armed private security profes6 sional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent
7 the officer, professional, or member is acting within
8 the course and scope of employment and official du9 ties;
10 €˜€˜(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift
11 between spouses, between domestic partners, be12 tween parents and their children, including step-par13 ents and their step-children, between siblings, be14 tween aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews,
15 or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if
16 the transferor has no reason to believe that the
17 transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in
18 a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms
19 under State or Federal law;

€˜€˜(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has
11 no reason to believe that the transferee will use or
12 intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited
13 from possessing firearms under State or Federal
14 law, and the transfer takes place and the trans15 ferees possession of the firearm is exclusively€”
16 €˜€˜(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting
17 gallery or other area designated for the purpose
18 of target shooting;
19 €˜€˜(ii) while reasonably necessary for the
20 purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the
21 transferor€”
22 €˜€˜(I) has no reason to believe that the
23 transferee intends to use the firearm in a
24 place where it is illegal; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:29 Mar 04, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8.PCS H8
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
5
HR 8 PCS
1 €˜€˜(II) has reason to believe that the
2 transferee will comply with all licensing
3 and permit requirements for such hunting,
4 trapping, or fishing; or
5 €˜€˜(iii) while in the presence of the trans6 feror.


Now, if you want to add to those exemptions, modify it in some way,
etc, that I understand. But stamping feet, huffing and puffing
Ted Cruz style, that it's some Second Amendment issue or claiming
that the law would block what the law does not prohibit is nuts.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:38:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:37:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Example of why nothing gets done on gun control:

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday said if Republicans strike a deal with Democrats to require all firearms sales over the internet or at gun shows to go through background checks, they would demoralize their conservative base ahead of next years presidential election.

€œIf Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,€� Cruz said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, referring to the liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts
who
is running for president."



How exactly extending the fed check to private gun sales equates to
"abandoning the Second Amendment", IDK. It will be interesting to see
how Trump tries to shyster his way on this one. One thing for sure,
if Trump says he's for it, he will support it, I sure wouldn't trust
that with my Senate career. He could do exactly what he did with healthcare,
assure the Republicans that he would sign either of two bills, that he
had their backs, then just two days later, tweet to forget about it
until after the election......

I guess the problem most people with their head a quarter inch out of
their ass have is most "internet" and "Gun show" transactions to get a
background check. They have booths for it at gun shows

But no requirement for any check, if you're not a gun dealer. Since
they have the booth, what's the big Ted Cruz, Second Amendment issue?



and FFL are
usually the seller on internet sales. (any site you can google) The
local transfer to the buyer is another FFL.
If you are talking about illegally manufactured guns like the guy in
Odessa, (stolen guns etc) is one more law going to stop that?

We're talking about private sales not being subject to the background
check. I've said before, that as far as the mass shooting go, this
hasn't been a source for the weapons. But it may have been in the
case of the El Paso shooting, we don't know yet. Certainly that was
a private sale, we don't know if he violated any laws or not.
Regardless, if that
one isn't, it's only a matter of time before someone uses that hole
to get a gun for a mass shooting. I don't want to see that happen.
And the main point is, how silly and extreme do you have to be to think like
Ted Cruz that this is some Second Amendment issue, when the vast
majority of sales are going through the fed check already? It's
not clear if Cruz even believes it or if he's just knuckling under
to the gun extremists.




Some of these laws are written so restrictively that transfers between
family members are regulated as well is simply letting someone borrow
your gun at the range.

IDK which laws that would be. The bill passed by the House, the actual
law on the table, states these exemptions which exempt what you're talking about:


€˜€˜(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to€”
4 €˜€˜(A) a law enforcement agency or any law en5 forcement officer, armed private security profes6 sional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent
7 the officer, professional, or member is acting within
8 the course and scope of employment and official du9 ties;
10 €˜€˜(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift
11 between spouses, between domestic partners, be12 tween parents and their children, including step-par13 ents and their step-children, between siblings, be14 tween aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews,
15 or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if
16 the transferor has no reason to believe that the
17 transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in
18 a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms
19 under State or Federal law;

€˜€˜(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has
11 no reason to believe that the transferee will use or
12 intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited
13 from possessing firearms under State or Federal
14 law, and the transfer takes place and the trans15 ferees possession of the firearm is exclusively€”
16 €˜€˜(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting
17 gallery or other area designated for the purpose
18 of target shooting;
19 €˜€˜(ii) while reasonably necessary for the
20 purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the
21 transferor€”
22 €˜€˜(I) has no reason to believe that the
23 transferee intends to use the firearm in a
24 place where it is illegal; and
VerDate Sep 11 2014 22:29 Mar 04, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8.PCS H8
pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
5
HR 8 PCS
1 €˜€˜(II) has reason to believe that the
2 transferee will comply with all licensing
3 and permit requirements for such hunting,
4 trapping, or fishing; or
5 €˜€˜(iii) while in the presence of the trans6 feror.


Now, if you want to add to those exemptions, modify it in some way,
etc, that I understand. But stamping feet, huffing and puffing
Ted Cruz style, that it's some Second Amendment issue or claiming
that the law would block what the law does not prohibit is nuts.

To be honest, I am not really paying any attention since I doubt
anything is going to be done anyway. I do know, the other attempts
were what I said.

We are still making a big thing out of something that has not really
resulted in any significant number of shootings. Most stranger danger
shootings in the US are among gangsters who are by definition
criminals and they are not going to follow laws.

[Ed Pawlowski[_3_]]

On 9/14/2019 6:39 PM, wrote:

HR 8 PCS
1 €˜€˜(II) has reason to believe that the
2 transferee will comply with all licensing
3 and permit requirements for such hunting,
4 trapping, or fishing; or
5 €˜€˜(iii) while in the presence of the trans6 feror.


Now, if you want to add to those exemptions, modify it in some way,
etc, that I understand. But stamping feet, huffing and puffing
Ted Cruz style, that it's some Second Amendment issue or claiming
that the law would block what the law does not prohibit is nuts.

To be honest, I am not really paying any attention since I doubt
anything is going to be done anyway. I do know, the other attempts
were what I said.

We are still making a big thing out of something that has not really
resulted in any significant number of shootings. Most stranger danger
shootings in the US are among gangsters who are by definition
criminals and they are not going to follow laws.


The solution is simple and some places have already started. Just post
the sign that says "Gun Free Zone". That should work.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

[Hawk]

On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.


Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.


Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.

This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

[Terry Coombs[_2_]]

On 9/19/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.
I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.
This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

Â* I believe it was Sam Clemens that said "There are 3 kinds of lies -
lies , damned lies , and statistics." Nuff said .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

[trader_4]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 4:30:58 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

That's one of the dumbest things you've posted here.

[trader_4]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.


Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.

Funny though, that most of the times the polls have it about right.
Even with Trump, they had the election close, it all depended on the
swing states and those were close going into the election. Sounds like
you're falling into the Trump trap. The polls that show what you want,
are tremendous, great, no problems with them or how they were conducted.
The ones that show what you don't want to hear, you ignore, claim are
fake, no good, politically motivated. And then there is the next logical
step, just make up polls. Trump has claimed for months now that his
approval rating among Republicans is 94%, yet AFAIK, no one has been able
to find any such poll and Trump hasn't provided a reference.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.


Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.

This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

The flaw in all of these polls is they are only polling people who
will actually take a robot call from an unknown number. That certainly
narrows the sample. You are limiting the people who take personal
security seriously from your poll before you even start.

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:35:15 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 9/19/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.
I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.
This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

Â* I believe it was Sam Clemens that said "There are 3 kinds of lies -
lies , damned lies , and statistics." Nuff said .

And yet statistics underlies most of our scientific advances.

Cindy Hamilton

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:30:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.


Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.

This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

The flaw in all of these polls is they are only polling people who
will actually take a robot call from an unknown number. That certainly
narrows the sample. You are limiting the people who take personal
security seriously from your poll before you even start.

I conjecture it skews their sample older.

Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

On 09/19/2019 02:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.

I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

The RAF under Bomber Harris definitely would have scared the **** out of
me.

[rbowman]

On 09/19/2019 11:04 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:35:15 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 9/19/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.
I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.
This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

I believe it was Sam Clemens that said "There are 3 kinds of lies -
lies , damned lies , and statistics." Nuff said .

And yet statistics underlies most of our scientific advances.

Cindy Hamilton


Another damned lie...

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:53:09 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 09/19/2019 11:04 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:35:15 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 9/19/2019 7:09 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 7:43:38 AM UTC-4, Hawk wrote:
On 9/19/2019 4:30 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:03:12 +0100, Bod
wrote:

On 11/09/2019 10:52, Bod wrote:
A growing number of people fear a mass shooting could take place in
their community, and an overwhelming majority support background checks
for gun sales, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Americans said they are worried about a mass shooting
in their own community, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll
released Monday. That's up 5 points compared to January 2013, when 55
percent of Americans said they feared a mass shooting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/46...community-poll

It's sadly ironic, that the very thing that you *think* makes you
safe(guns), is the very thing that brings you fear.
I guess that could have been said in WWII about the Royal Air Force and
the German air force. And maybe still today.

Was anyone in this group polled with that question? I never was. They
poll a small group of Americans and 55 out of 100 represent the entire
US population? Stop believing in polls. They are skewed to fit their agenda.
This group does not represent a random sample of Americans. They polled
more than 1000 people, a sufficient size for statistical significance.

The Hill provided a link to the survey's design methodology. If you don't
understand it, take a course in statistics, then try again. You may need
linear algebra and possibly calculus as a prerequisite.

Cindy Hamilton

I believe it was Sam Clemens that said "There are 3 kinds of lies -
lies , damned lies , and statistics." Nuff said .

And yet statistics underlies most of our scientific advances.

Cindy Hamilton


Another damned lie...

I recall my first job. I worked for a man studying renal adenocarcinoma
in frogs as a model for human cancer (unless you'd prefer to induce cancer
in humans for research). I typed endless statistical analyses of the
data.

Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

On 09/20/2019 04:32 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
I recall my first job. I worked for a man studying renal adenocarcinoma
in frogs as a model for human cancer (unless you'd prefer to induce cancer
in humans for research). I typed endless statistical analyses of the
data.

When I was in college I worked summers for the state Department of
Education. They crunched a lot of numbers trying to formulate state wide
high school exams that would result in a pleasing bell curve. Sometimes
they succeeded. The crunching part was quite literal since they used
Friden square root calculators;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnmj9EzKgtg

That model isn't the square root variety but is very similar.

My memory of my statistics course was the chief use was determining how
many blivits you needed to test to insure only 5% of the blivits you
sold were junk. The 5% number varied depending on the cost of replacing
defective units and ****ing off customers.

It was a long time ago but my gut feeling is 1000 out of some 300+
million isn't a valid sample.

[Cindy Hamilton[_2_]]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:22:06 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 09/20/2019 04:32 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
I recall my first job. I worked for a man studying renal adenocarcinoma
in frogs as a model for human cancer (unless you'd prefer to induce cancer
in humans for research). I typed endless statistical analyses of the
data.

When I was in college I worked summers for the state Department of
Education. They crunched a lot of numbers trying to formulate state wide
high school exams that would result in a pleasing bell curve. Sometimes
they succeeded. The crunching part was quite literal since they used
Friden square root calculators;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnmj9EzKgtg

That model isn't the square root variety but is very similar.

My memory of my statistics course was the chief use was determining how
many blivits you needed to test to insure only 5% of the blivits you
sold were junk. The 5% number varied depending on the cost of replacing
defective units and ****ing off customers.

That certainly was a very specific statistics course. Or your memory
of it was very specific.

It was a long time ago but my gut feeling is 1000 out of some 300+
million isn't a valid sample.

I can't quite recall the details. However, Scientific American was
kind enough to fill in the gaps in my memory:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/howcan-a-poll-of-only-100/

Cindy Hamilton