On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:44:20 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do?

I'm waiting for you to tell us. You claimed that the root cause is the
Civil War and that we have not dealt with integration since then.
Presumably you know what should be done to deal with it.

I gave you my partial solution, which again is a uniform permit process
across the US, where the local police chief issues a permit for each gun
purchase, after a real background check. That would dissuade cousin
Shawanna from walking into Dicks and buying 6 guns there, sending them
to her cousin in Chicago.




You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

No comprehension issue. It's just another aspect of the problem.
You know what could be done? How about if we had a president who gave
a damn? Appoint a task force of blacks to deliver the message to the
black community. Invite the mayors of Chicago and Detroit to the WH to discuss
what needs to be done. Get on TV and instead of telling Putin's lies, advocate
that part of the solution is those living in crime ridden neighborhoods
need to cooperate with the police. How about tweeting about that, instead
of insults? In other words, show some LEADERSHIP,
instead of dividing America. Of course Trump has so vilified everyone,
divided everyone, poisoned the political environment that it's impossible
for him to do any of that. Which is another reason he needs to go.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:46:13 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

That was precisely why the voting age was lowered along with the
drinking age, for a while, until the prohibitionists raised it back up
to 21. We had far too many combat vets coming home from Vietnam, who
couldn't buy a drink or vote.



I knew about the voting age, but never knew the drinking age was ever
lowered. In NC where I live back in the late 1960's it was 18 to drink
beer, not sure about wine,and 21 for the 'hard' stuff. Later it was
raised to 21 for all.


DC was 18 for beer and wine too, pretty much since prohibition but in
the Vietnam era other states were lowering the age. Nancy Reagan and
the MADD women made all of that go away.
Now if you are 18, alcohol, MDMA and fentanyl are all the same thing.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.





Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun?

No, of course not. What's sad is that you don't see the fallacy in that
logic. It's like saying that because we can't end all traffic fatalities,
no point in doing reasonable measures to reduce it. Because we can't cure
all cancer, no point in trying to cure any. People die, so what. That's
your bizarre argument.




You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.

See the above.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:17:48 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article , grumpy@old-white-
guy.network says...

It has been stated before and it's worth stating again...if a person is deemed too dangerous to own a gun then they are too dangerous to be loose on the streets.Â* Lock 'em up or euthanize 'em.




My feelings too.

Is this America, or Nazi Germany? We have millions of people who are
mentally ill or have a record of bad behavior and your solution is to
euthanize them or lock them up? Do you even realize what you're saying?
The vast majority of them do not become mass murderers. I don't know
that the rate of violent crime among the mentally ill is any higher
that that of the general population. They are living in society,
functioning, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for them to be
buying guns. Someone has the mental capacity of a ten year old.
Your idea is to exterminate them or lock them up for life, rather
than simply have a permit process, so they can't buy a gun.
My God, what is wrong with you?

And sad too, because previously I have had discussions with you where
you acknowledged that you were OK with a reasonable permit process
before one can go buy a gun. Now, instead you want euthanasia?
WTF?






They could just as easy use a knife or run over people
with a car if they go nuts. Just saw where some woman ran over a Latino
girl just because she was one.

But an AR-15 is infinitely more practical and deadly. Can you find us
any that have killed 50 people with a knife or car?

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:02:35 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/22/2019 09:30 AM, wrote:
You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

Snowden and Manning embarrassed the government. The Walkers aided the
Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

I was undergoing a background check when that **** hit the fan. DISCO,
which I think has morphed into DCSA, immediately stopped processing all
applications until they figured out how they screwed the pooch so badly.

Ames, Hanssen, the list goes on and then there are those that we
didn't hear about or haven't caught yet. They all passed very
comprehensive background checks. Trader seems to think that his ONE
example is a panacea.

Oh no, you're just delusional. You have it totally backwards. I know
that a reasonable permit process can't stop ALL mass shooters from
buying a gun. It will however cut down on the number who can.
On the other hand, your totally insane argument is that because
some people that pass a background check for a security clearance
wind up divulging information, that means the whole security clearance
process is worthless? Wow! But I understand, when the facts are
so obviously against you and arguments are reduced to rubble, that
kind of spurious nonsense is all that's left. You kind of sound like
Trump wailing away and making no sense.






Most of these shooters were squeaky clean until
they snapped, at least as far as any background check was going to
reveal.
All of this assumes they were not willing to just buy a gun off the
street or steal it anyway.

That still leaves a whole lot that were not clean, eg the Parkland shooter,
Ohio shooter, Virginia Tech shooter, etc. that could have been blocked
from walking into Dicks and buying guns.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:57:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:36:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:37:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:41:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:13:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:47:12 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:02:09 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:16:56 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:42 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:55:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:02:28 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 18/12/2019 20:44, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:13:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

On 12/18/19 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:
Any other country would regard 45 school shootings in one year to be
horrendous. Nearly one a day.
I can only recall the UK having just 2 in its history.

The US has the weakest gun laws in the developed world.

--
Bod


It is as horrendous as your acid attacks.

There's your "yes but" bull**** defense again.
Yhe UK is not having weekly deadly attacks on multiple school children
in their schools - whether by gun, acid, knife or sarin gas doesn't
matter. It is a DISEASE in the USA - and sadly, GUNS, and in
particular automatic "assault" weapons which have NO legitimate use -
they are not hunting rifles - they are designed for one purpose, and
one purpose only - to kill people

Well put.
The "weekly attacks" are thugs in school being thugs. Some of our
schools are in combat zones. Kids in school and people outside those
schools carry guns and shoot each other. That is why you hear the
details of a shooting every year or two but they say we have one a
week. They don't want to get into the details of the others. It might
sound racist.
Not as "racist" as your vague accusatorial response. Part of the
"desease" is the teriible discrepancy between rich and poor in the USA
- and the almost institutional atempts to keep it that way. Not just
financially either.

True
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_dis tribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Old data, it's got worse with Trump's "politics".
The lower the number, the poorer the majority are in
comparison with the top 1%.
To the semi literate = GREEN is acceptable.
Any other color is not.
Kudos to Canada.
[]'s

The goal of socialism is to make everyone equally poor and dependant
on the government.

And yet the highest standard of living is in ... socialist
countries. Look up HDI. Best schools, security, healthcare, pensions,
salaries, freedom etc for the majority of the population (try to
forget the top 1%, I know you love Bill Gates, Trump, Jeff Bezos etc,
but they are NOT the average citizen).


You are talking about homogeneous white european countries. There is
more going on there than simply that they are socialist. Maybe if we
sent them several million hard core unemployable people with criminal
tendencies and a chip on their shoulder, things wouldn't be so rosy.


The US is the only country with hardcore unemployable and chips on their
shoulders? Maybe the difference is that the US has a culture that
celebrate guns, shooting, violence as part of our heritage and has
more guns per capita than anywhere else? How about Australia for
example? Plenty of minorities, hardcore unemployed there too, but
there murder rate with guns is .8 compared to our 12.


If you don't see the difference, there is no sense talking any more.
Were they born out of a revolution that overthrew the government with
force and violence?

Sure, many have. France for example and at the same time period
as the US revolution. France's homicide rate by guns, 0.2. The US 12.
The homicide rate does correlate pretty well with the rate of gun ownership
though. Funny too, the French didn't go on to live 225 years later
in paranoia feeling they need guns.

France doesn't have guns because when they drop them they might break
a toe. I have an 1886 Lebel that was never fired and only dropped
twice, once in 1914 and once in 1940.

Well, there you have it. As if the French didn't know for the last
two hundred years that fine guns are available the world over.
Including Germany and Italy, right next door.




Did any of those countries have a civil war that killed 3 % of the
population then did not deal with the original issue of integrating
the slaves for 150 years ... and counting?

We have not dealt with the issues of integration? What exactly do
you suggest we do?


We have had this discussion, Maybe not have had the war in the first
place.

That shipped sailed a hundred and fifty years ago. I asked about what
you would do now, since you claim we have not dealt with integration.




It is really not my job to say what they should have done. It
is clear we ****ed it up tho.

I'd say if you claim we have not dealt with integration, then you should
be able to tell us what we have not done, that needs to be done.

I said, it is not my problem to solve.
I am not sure there is a good answer but if you wanted to stop most of
the murders you would ban people of color from owning guns. We all
know that is unconstitutional on several points.



Are they walking distance from an active war zone in Central America
or the drug gangs in Mexico?

Have they had a failed social welfare policy for a half century?

Well, if the US is such a melting pot of violence, with all kinds of
bad actors as the result of events 150 to 225 years ago, that's an
excellent reason that we should have a reasonable permit process,
with a real background check by the local police, BEFORE anyone
can buy a gun. Why should those people you're talking about,
be able to walk into Dicks and buy guns like they were beer?
They can be hate filled, have long arrest records, known mental
problems, be drug users, yet they can buy guns just like beer?
That makes no sense to me, nor to much of America. Call me radical.


You really can't buy guns like beer. There is a required federal
background check and a number of other restrictions in GCA 68 and all
of the subsequent amendments but thanks for playing our game.


But you insist that you have to be able to walk into Dicks and buy
whatever you want, on the spot. You refuse to institute a reasonable
permit process with an actual field background check by the local police.
That's closer to buying beer than the permit processes that actually
check a person's background and that work, eg those in foreign countries
or those that are done in some states like NJ.

Your idea is to give any local LEO veto power over anyone buying a gun
on a hunch that they might not be worthy. That is not a decent answer
either.

A permit process is not only a decent answer, it's been the law in NJ for
4 decades to buy a pistol, other states, other countries too.
And the permit process is
not based on a hunch, it's based on facts that are found by the local
police doing a real background check. We don't need our guns here like
beer and cigarettes, just walk in and buy what you want.

OK all of you homicide cops in Camden, Newark and Atlantic City, go
home, we don't need you anymore, we have this law.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:44:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do? You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
ANd they won't co-operate with law enforcement when they KNOW law
enforcement cannot protect them if they do.
Even if the perp is shot or hanged for it, so they can never extract
revenge, the perp's "people" will. And the poor folks in the
"projects" know that all too well.
Sadly, I'm not sure there IS a solution that does not involve keeping
guns out of the hands of the good guys as well as the bad - if even
THAT would be a solution. Might solve the GUN violence, but then
they'd find another way to wreak havok.

A solution was within reach. perhaps, 40 or more years ago, but we've
let that horse out of the barn.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:52:17 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case. Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun? You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.
The only "solution" to that would be no guns to be stolllen - - - and
that won't fly.

On 12/22/2019 12:38 PM, wrote:
That was precisely why the voting age was lowered along with the
drinking age, for a while, until the prohibitionists raised it back up
to 21. We had far too many combat vets coming home from Vietnam, who
couldn't buy a drink or vote.

When I was growing up in New York State you could drink at 18 and vote
at 21. It didn't affect me by the time they swapped the ages but I
figured it was a bad deal. Let me see... Would I rather go out and have
a few beers tonight or vote for some turkey next year who isn't going to
do what he promised to do anyway? I've got to think about that for a while.

There was one problem with the drinking age. Kids would come over from
Vermont where the age was 21, get hammered, and kill themselves on the
mountain roads going home.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

It is also unclear how many of those other sales would have been
blocked. You know people can move? Right?
I had a Florida driver's license 3 years before I lived here full
time.



Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun?

No, of course not. What's sad is that you don't see the fallacy in that
logic. It's like saying that because we can't end all traffic fatalities,
no point in doing reasonable measures to reduce it. Because we can't cure
all cancer, no point in trying to cure any. People die, so what. That's
your bizarre argument.




You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.

See the above.

OK so lets do something to punish the lawful on the off chance that it
might stop the unlawful. Like I said, you are a Bloomberg guy. Stop
and frisk anyone who looks "hinky" to you.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:13:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:02:35 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/22/2019 09:30 AM, wrote:
You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

Snowden and Manning embarrassed the government. The Walkers aided the
Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

I was undergoing a background check when that **** hit the fan. DISCO,
which I think has morphed into DCSA, immediately stopped processing all
applications until they figured out how they screwed the pooch so badly.

Ames, Hanssen, the list goes on and then there are those that we
didn't hear about or haven't caught yet. They all passed very
comprehensive background checks. Trader seems to think that his ONE
example is a panacea.

Oh no, you're just delusional. You have it totally backwards. I know
that a reasonable permit process can't stop ALL mass shooters from
buying a gun. It will however cut down on the number who can.
On the other hand, your totally insane argument is that because
some people that pass a background check for a security clearance
wind up divulging information, that means the whole security clearance
process is worthless? Wow! But I understand, when the facts are
so obviously against you and arguments are reduced to rubble, that
kind of spurious nonsense is all that's left. You kind of sound like
Trump wailing away and making no sense.






Most of these shooters were squeaky clean until
they snapped, at least as far as any background check was going to
reveal.
All of this assumes they were not willing to just buy a gun off the
street or steal it anyway.

That still leaves a whole lot that were not clean, eg the Parkland shooter,
Ohio shooter, Virginia Tech shooter, etc. that could have been blocked
from walking into Dicks and buying guns.

Tell us why?

BTW None of these people bought their gun at Dicks. So you just like
saying "dick".

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:41:32 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:44:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do? You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
ANd they won't co-operate with law enforcement when they KNOW law
enforcement cannot protect them if they do.
Even if the perp is shot or hanged for it, so they can never extract
revenge, the perp's "people" will. And the poor folks in the
"projects" know that all too well.
Sadly, I'm not sure there IS a solution that does not involve keeping
guns out of the hands of the good guys as well as the bad - if even
THAT would be a solution. Might solve the GUN violence, but then
they'd find another way to wreak havok.

A solution was within reach. perhaps, 40 or more years ago, but we've
let that horse out of the barn.

You would still be left with the fact that if we take all of the gun
murders out of the statistic, we would still have a murder rate higher
than the rest of the developed democracies. That also assumes the
"gun" murderers wouldn't have just used another weapon.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:47:57 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/22/2019 12:38 PM, wrote:
That was precisely why the voting age was lowered along with the
drinking age, for a while, until the prohibitionists raised it back up
to 21. We had far too many combat vets coming home from Vietnam, who
couldn't buy a drink or vote.

When I was growing up in New York State you could drink at 18 and vote
at 21. It didn't affect me by the time they swapped the ages but I
figured it was a bad deal. Let me see... Would I rather go out and have
a few beers tonight or vote for some turkey next year who isn't going to
do what he promised to do anyway? I've got to think about that for a while.

There was one problem with the drinking age. Kids would come over from
Vermont where the age was 21, get hammered, and kill themselves on the
mountain roads going home.

The Maryland and Virginia kids all went to DC. I had a fake ID when I
was 16 and I went to school in DC so I could slip out for a beer if I
didn't have a class. A bud draft was a quarter at the little bar at
the end of the alley behind the school.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:58:58 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:41:32 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:44:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do? You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
ANd they won't co-operate with law enforcement when they KNOW law
enforcement cannot protect them if they do.
Even if the perp is shot or hanged for it, so they can never extract
revenge, the perp's "people" will. And the poor folks in the
"projects" know that all too well.
Sadly, I'm not sure there IS a solution that does not involve keeping
guns out of the hands of the good guys as well as the bad - if even
THAT would be a solution. Might solve the GUN violence, but then
they'd find another way to wreak havok.

A solution was within reach. perhaps, 40 or more years ago, but we've
let that horse out of the barn.

You would still be left with the fact that if we take all of the gun
murders out of the statistic, we would still have a murder rate higher
than the rest of the developed democracies. That also assumes the
"gun" murderers wouldn't have just used another weapon.
Like I said - Ol' Dobbin's out of the barn

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 12/22/2019 11:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.

Such a measure serves only to punish someone after the fact, not to
prevent the act. The threat of capital punishment is demonstrated to not
prevent murder; it is punishment for the commission of a criminal act.

People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s

On 12/23/2019 12:33 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s

You poor deluded optimist... Considering selling guns in the alleys of
Detroit is only a sideline for the banger whose real product line is
crack, fentanyl, and black tar heroin, do you really think he gives a
**** about laws?

On 12/23/19 9:17 AM, RosemontCrest wrote:
On 12/22/2019 11:33 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Â*Â*Â*Â*Of guns?
Â*Â*Â*Â*Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.

Such a measure serves only to punish someone after the fact, not to
prevent the act. The threat of capital punishment is demonstrated to not
prevent murder; it is punishment for the commission of a criminal act.


The democrat's liberal pacifism isn't working.
OTOH, a guillotine is 100% effective against recidivism.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:57:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:36:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:37:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:41:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:13:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:47:12 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:02:09 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:16:56 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:42 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:55:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:02:28 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 18/12/2019 20:44, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:13:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

On 12/18/19 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:
Any other country would regard 45 school shootings in one year to be
horrendous. Nearly one a day.
I can only recall the UK having just 2 in its history.

The US has the weakest gun laws in the developed world.

--
Bod


It is as horrendous as your acid attacks.

There's your "yes but" bull**** defense again.
Yhe UK is not having weekly deadly attacks on multiple school children
in their schools - whether by gun, acid, knife or sarin gas doesn't
matter. It is a DISEASE in the USA - and sadly, GUNS, and in
particular automatic "assault" weapons which have NO legitimate use -
they are not hunting rifles - they are designed for one purpose, and
one purpose only - to kill people

Well put.
The "weekly attacks" are thugs in school being thugs. Some of our
schools are in combat zones. Kids in school and people outside those
schools carry guns and shoot each other. That is why you hear the
details of a shooting every year or two but they say we have one a
week. They don't want to get into the details of the others. It might
sound racist.
Not as "racist" as your vague accusatorial response. Part of the
"desease" is the teriible discrepancy between rich and poor in the USA
- and the almost institutional atempts to keep it that way. Not just
financially either.

True
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_dis tribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Old data, it's got worse with Trump's "politics".
The lower the number, the poorer the majority are in
comparison with the top 1%.
To the semi literate = GREEN is acceptable.
Any other color is not.
Kudos to Canada.
[]'s

The goal of socialism is to make everyone equally poor and dependant
on the government.

And yet the highest standard of living is in ... socialist
countries. Look up HDI. Best schools, security, healthcare, pensions,
salaries, freedom etc for the majority of the population (try to
forget the top 1%, I know you love Bill Gates, Trump, Jeff Bezos etc,
but they are NOT the average citizen).


You are talking about homogeneous white european countries. There is
more going on there than simply that they are socialist. Maybe if we
sent them several million hard core unemployable people with criminal
tendencies and a chip on their shoulder, things wouldn't be so rosy.


The US is the only country with hardcore unemployable and chips on their
shoulders? Maybe the difference is that the US has a culture that
celebrate guns, shooting, violence as part of our heritage and has
more guns per capita than anywhere else? How about Australia for
example? Plenty of minorities, hardcore unemployed there too, but
there murder rate with guns is .8 compared to our 12.


If you don't see the difference, there is no sense talking any more.
Were they born out of a revolution that overthrew the government with
force and violence?

Sure, many have. France for example and at the same time period
as the US revolution. France's homicide rate by guns, 0.2. The US 12.
The homicide rate does correlate pretty well with the rate of gun ownership
though. Funny too, the French didn't go on to live 225 years later
in paranoia feeling they need guns.

France doesn't have guns because when they drop them they might break
a toe. I have an 1886 Lebel that was never fired and only dropped
twice, once in 1914 and once in 1940.

Well, there you have it. As if the French didn't know for the last
two hundred years that fine guns are available the world over.
Including Germany and Italy, right next door.




Did any of those countries have a civil war that killed 3 % of the
population then did not deal with the original issue of integrating
the slaves for 150 years ... and counting?

We have not dealt with the issues of integration? What exactly do
you suggest we do?


We have had this discussion, Maybe not have had the war in the first
place.

That shipped sailed a hundred and fifty years ago. I asked about what
you would do now, since you claim we have not dealt with integration.




It is really not my job to say what they should have done. It
is clear we ****ed it up tho.

I'd say if you claim we have not dealt with integration, then you should
be able to tell us what we have not done, that needs to be done.

I said, it is not my problem to solve.
I am not sure there is a good answer but if you wanted to stop most of
the murders you would ban people of color from owning guns. We all
know that is unconstitutional on several points.



Are they walking distance from an active war zone in Central America
or the drug gangs in Mexico?

Have they had a failed social welfare policy for a half century?

Well, if the US is such a melting pot of violence, with all kinds of
bad actors as the result of events 150 to 225 years ago, that's an
excellent reason that we should have a reasonable permit process,
with a real background check by the local police, BEFORE anyone
can buy a gun. Why should those people you're talking about,
be able to walk into Dicks and buy guns like they were beer?
They can be hate filled, have long arrest records, known mental
problems, be drug users, yet they can buy guns just like beer?
That makes no sense to me, nor to much of America. Call me radical.


You really can't buy guns like beer. There is a required federal
background check and a number of other restrictions in GCA 68 and all
of the subsequent amendments but thanks for playing our game.


But you insist that you have to be able to walk into Dicks and buy
whatever you want, on the spot. You refuse to institute a reasonable
permit process with an actual field background check by the local police.
That's closer to buying beer than the permit processes that actually
check a person's background and that work, eg those in foreign countries
or those that are done in some states like NJ.

Your idea is to give any local LEO veto power over anyone buying a gun
on a hunch that they might not be worthy. That is not a decent answer
either.

A permit process is not only a decent answer, it's been the law in NJ for
4 decades to buy a pistol, other states, other countries too.
And the permit process is
not based on a hunch, it's based on facts that are found by the local
police doing a real background check. We don't need our guns here like
beer and cigarettes, just walk in and buy what you want.

OK all of you homicide cops in Camden, Newark and Atlantic City, go
home, we don't need you anymore, we have this law.

No, we don't have the law across the US, that's the problem, guns are
flowing into those cities from states that have no effective gun control,
like FL.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.





It is also unclear how many of those other sales would have been
blocked. You know people can move? Right?
I had a Florida driver's license 3 years before I lived here full
time.

Yaddda, yadda, yadda. Following that bizarre logic we should have
done nothing about auto deaths, nothing about drunk driving, because
it;s unclear exactly how many deaths we can prevent.







Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun?

No, of course not. What's sad is that you don't see the fallacy in that
logic. It's like saying that because we can't end all traffic fatalities,
no point in doing reasonable measures to reduce it. Because we can't cure
all cancer, no point in trying to cure any. People die, so what. That's
your bizarre argument.




You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.

See the above.

OK so lets do something to punish the lawful on the off chance that it
might stop the unlawful. Like I said, you are a Bloomberg guy. Stop
and frisk anyone who looks "hinky" to you.


No one is punishing lawful people, by requiring closing the private sale
loophole or requiring a permit to buy a gun, no more than requiring a
license to drive is "punishing" anyone. Really quite amusing how the
discussion goes silly, when you have no real valid argument to make.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:57:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:13:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:02:35 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/22/2019 09:30 AM, wrote:
You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

Snowden and Manning embarrassed the government. The Walkers aided the
Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

I was undergoing a background check when that **** hit the fan. DISCO,
which I think has morphed into DCSA, immediately stopped processing all
applications until they figured out how they screwed the pooch so badly.

Ames, Hanssen, the list goes on and then there are those that we
didn't hear about or haven't caught yet. They all passed very
comprehensive background checks. Trader seems to think that his ONE
example is a panacea.

Oh no, you're just delusional. You have it totally backwards. I know
that a reasonable permit process can't stop ALL mass shooters from
buying a gun. It will however cut down on the number who can.
On the other hand, your totally insane argument is that because
some people that pass a background check for a security clearance
wind up divulging information, that means the whole security clearance
process is worthless? Wow! But I understand, when the facts are
so obviously against you and arguments are reduced to rubble, that
kind of spurious nonsense is all that's left. You kind of sound like
Trump wailing away and making no sense.






Most of these shooters were squeaky clean until
they snapped, at least as far as any background check was going to
reveal.
All of this assumes they were not willing to just buy a gun off the
street or steal it anyway.

That still leaves a whole lot that were not clean, eg the Parkland shooter,
Ohio shooter, Virginia Tech shooter, etc. that could have been blocked
from walking into Dicks and buying guns.

Tell us why?

Tell you why, what? Good grief. We've been through the Parkland shooter
how many times now? You might have gone ahead and issued him a permit,
but a reasonable chief of police, following a reasonable law like we have
here in NJ would not. Go research the others yourself, since you can't
even accept the Crux case, there is no point in me doing it.



BTW None of these people bought their gun at Dicks. So you just like
saying "dick".

As you correctly pointed out, (thank you), Cruz actually bought TEN guns
from more that just Dicks. Irrelevant exactly which store he bought
them from.

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:59:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:41:32 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:44:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do? You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
ANd they won't co-operate with law enforcement when they KNOW law
enforcement cannot protect them if they do.
Even if the perp is shot or hanged for it, so they can never extract
revenge, the perp's "people" will. And the poor folks in the
"projects" know that all too well.
Sadly, I'm not sure there IS a solution that does not involve keeping
guns out of the hands of the good guys as well as the bad - if even
THAT would be a solution. Might solve the GUN violence, but then
they'd find another way to wreak havok.

A solution was within reach. perhaps, 40 or more years ago, but we've
let that horse out of the barn.

You would still be left with the fact that if we take all of the gun
murders out of the statistic, we would still have a murder rate higher
than the rest of the developed democracies. That also assumes the
"gun" murderers wouldn't have just used another weapon.

Well, you got us there. Since the rate would still be higher, no point
in doing anything to lower the rate You win. Good thing you're not
working on cures for cancer. Researchers: Studies show this can lower
the cancer death rate from 40% to 25%. Fretwell: There will still be
a 25% rate, let;s not market it.

On 12/23/19 10:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:57:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:36:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:37:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:41:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:13:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:47:12 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:02:09 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:16:56 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:42 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:55:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:02:28 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 18/12/2019 20:44, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:13:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

On 12/18/19 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:
Any other country would regard 45 school shootings in one year to be
horrendous. Nearly one a day.
I can only recall the UK having just 2 in its history.

The US has the weakest gun laws in the developed world.

--
Bod


It is as horrendous as your acid attacks.

There's your "yes but" bull**** defense again.
Yhe UK is not having weekly deadly attacks on multiple school children
in their schools - whether by gun, acid, knife or sarin gas doesn't
matter. It is a DISEASE in the USA - and sadly, GUNS, and in
particular automatic "assault" weapons which have NO legitimate use -
they are not hunting rifles - they are designed for one purpose, and
one purpose only - to kill people

Well put.
The "weekly attacks" are thugs in school being thugs. Some of our
schools are in combat zones. Kids in school and people outside those
schools carry guns and shoot each other. That is why you hear the
details of a shooting every year or two but they say we have one a
week. They don't want to get into the details of the others. It might
sound racist.
Not as "racist" as your vague accusatorial response. Part of the
"desease" is the teriible discrepancy between rich and poor in the USA
- and the almost institutional atempts to keep it that way. Not just
financially either.

True
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_dis tribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Old data, it's got worse with Trump's "politics".
The lower the number, the poorer the majority are in
comparison with the top 1%.
To the semi literate = GREEN is acceptable.
Any other color is not.
Kudos to Canada.
[]'s

The goal of socialism is to make everyone equally poor and dependant
on the government.

And yet the highest standard of living is in ... socialist
countries. Look up HDI. Best schools, security, healthcare, pensions,
salaries, freedom etc for the majority of the population (try to
forget the top 1%, I know you love Bill Gates, Trump, Jeff Bezos etc,
but they are NOT the average citizen).


You are talking about homogeneous white european countries. There is
more going on there than simply that they are socialist. Maybe if we
sent them several million hard core unemployable people with criminal
tendencies and a chip on their shoulder, things wouldn't be so rosy.


The US is the only country with hardcore unemployable and chips on their
shoulders? Maybe the difference is that the US has a culture that
celebrate guns, shooting, violence as part of our heritage and has
more guns per capita than anywhere else? How about Australia for
example? Plenty of minorities, hardcore unemployed there too, but
there murder rate with guns is .8 compared to our 12.


If you don't see the difference, there is no sense talking any more.
Were they born out of a revolution that overthrew the government with
force and violence?

Sure, many have. France for example and at the same time period
as the US revolution. France's homicide rate by guns, 0.2. The US 12.
The homicide rate does correlate pretty well with the rate of gun ownership
though. Funny too, the French didn't go on to live 225 years later
in paranoia feeling they need guns.

France doesn't have guns because when they drop them they might break
a toe. I have an 1886 Lebel that was never fired and only dropped
twice, once in 1914 and once in 1940.

Well, there you have it. As if the French didn't know for the last
two hundred years that fine guns are available the world over.
Including Germany and Italy, right next door.




Did any of those countries have a civil war that killed 3 % of the
population then did not deal with the original issue of integrating
the slaves for 150 years ... and counting?

We have not dealt with the issues of integration? What exactly do
you suggest we do?


We have had this discussion, Maybe not have had the war in the first
place.

That shipped sailed a hundred and fifty years ago. I asked about what
you would do now, since you claim we have not dealt with integration.




It is really not my job to say what they should have done. It
is clear we ****ed it up tho.

I'd say if you claim we have not dealt with integration, then you should
be able to tell us what we have not done, that needs to be done.

I said, it is not my problem to solve.
I am not sure there is a good answer but if you wanted to stop most of
the murders you would ban people of color from owning guns. We all
know that is unconstitutional on several points.



Are they walking distance from an active war zone in Central America
or the drug gangs in Mexico?

Have they had a failed social welfare policy for a half century?

Well, if the US is such a melting pot of violence, with all kinds of
bad actors as the result of events 150 to 225 years ago, that's an
excellent reason that we should have a reasonable permit process,
with a real background check by the local police, BEFORE anyone
can buy a gun. Why should those people you're talking about,
be able to walk into Dicks and buy guns like they were beer?
They can be hate filled, have long arrest records, known mental
problems, be drug users, yet they can buy guns just like beer?
That makes no sense to me, nor to much of America. Call me radical.


You really can't buy guns like beer. There is a required federal
background check and a number of other restrictions in GCA 68 and all
of the subsequent amendments but thanks for playing our game.


But you insist that you have to be able to walk into Dicks and buy
whatever you want, on the spot. You refuse to institute a reasonable
permit process with an actual field background check by the local police.
That's closer to buying beer than the permit processes that actually
check a person's background and that work, eg those in foreign countries
or those that are done in some states like NJ.

Your idea is to give any local LEO veto power over anyone buying a gun
on a hunch that they might not be worthy. That is not a decent answer
either.

A permit process is not only a decent answer, it's been the law in NJ for
4 decades to buy a pistol, other states, other countries too.
And the permit process is
not based on a hunch, it's based on facts that are found by the local
police doing a real background check. We don't need our guns here like
beer and cigarettes, just walk in and buy what you want.

OK all of you homicide cops in Camden, Newark and Atlantic City, go
home, we don't need you anymore, we have this law.

No, we don't have the law across the US, that's the problem, guns are
flowing into those cities from states that have no effective gun control,
like FL.


It's a problem the democrats created. Your team went soft on crime so
now the streets are crawling with repeat offenders. To make matters
worse, your team even lets new criminals come in across our borders.

A gun helps level the playing field for law-abiding tax-paying citizens.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 04:33:54 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s


Yeah that threat of jail has done such a great job in the drug war. We
just ended up with about a million people in prison for drug offenses
and the drug trade is still thriving, driving ther murder rate. We
even threaten to kill murderers and they still murder.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:43:00 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/23/2019 12:33 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s

You poor deluded optimist... Considering selling guns in the alleys of
Detroit is only a sideline for the banger whose real product line is
crack, fentanyl, and black tar heroin, do you really think he gives a
**** about laws?



Gun charges in most states get traded away for a plea to the
underlying crime anyway. Only a few states, like Florida, will pursue
the gun crime because they carry stiffer mandatory minimums.
(10,20,life). All it really does is fill up the prison system.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?




It is also unclear how many of those other sales would have been
blocked. You know people can move? Right?
I had a Florida driver's license 3 years before I lived here full
time.

Yaddda, yadda, yadda. Following that bizarre logic we should have
done nothing about auto deaths, nothing about drunk driving, because
it;s unclear exactly how many deaths we can prevent.


To a certain extent that is true, we have very draconian drunk driving
laws and zero tolerance in enforcement and there are still plenty of
drunks on the road.






Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun?

No, of course not. What's sad is that you don't see the fallacy in that
logic. It's like saying that because we can't end all traffic fatalities,
no point in doing reasonable measures to reduce it. Because we can't cure
all cancer, no point in trying to cure any. People die, so what. That's
your bizarre argument.




You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.

See the above.

OK so lets do something to punish the lawful on the off chance that it
might stop the unlawful. Like I said, you are a Bloomberg guy. Stop
and frisk anyone who looks "hinky" to you.


No one is punishing lawful people, by requiring closing the private sale
loophole or requiring a permit to buy a gun, no more than requiring a
license to drive is "punishing" anyone. Really quite amusing how the
discussion goes silly, when you have no real valid argument to make.

Certainly you are if you are telling a guy in Montana that he has to
take his neighbor to a town, that might be 50 miles away, a couple of
times and pay a hefty fee, just to sell him (or even loan him) a rusty
..22 cal single shot rifle.
The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:45:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:57:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:13:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 2:35:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:02:35 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/22/2019 09:30 AM, wrote:
You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

Snowden and Manning embarrassed the government. The Walkers aided the
Soviets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

I was undergoing a background check when that **** hit the fan. DISCO,
which I think has morphed into DCSA, immediately stopped processing all
applications until they figured out how they screwed the pooch so badly.

Ames, Hanssen, the list goes on and then there are those that we
didn't hear about or haven't caught yet. They all passed very
comprehensive background checks. Trader seems to think that his ONE
example is a panacea.

Oh no, you're just delusional. You have it totally backwards. I know
that a reasonable permit process can't stop ALL mass shooters from
buying a gun. It will however cut down on the number who can.
On the other hand, your totally insane argument is that because
some people that pass a background check for a security clearance
wind up divulging information, that means the whole security clearance
process is worthless? Wow! But I understand, when the facts are
so obviously against you and arguments are reduced to rubble, that
kind of spurious nonsense is all that's left. You kind of sound like
Trump wailing away and making no sense.






Most of these shooters were squeaky clean until
they snapped, at least as far as any background check was going to
reveal.
All of this assumes they were not willing to just buy a gun off the
street or steal it anyway.

That still leaves a whole lot that were not clean, eg the Parkland shooter,
Ohio shooter, Virginia Tech shooter, etc. that could have been blocked
from walking into Dicks and buying guns.

Tell us why?

Tell you why, what? Good grief. We've been through the Parkland shooter
how many times now? You might have gone ahead and issued him a permit,
but a reasonable chief of police, following a reasonable law like we have
here in NJ would not. Go research the others yourself, since you can't
even accept the Crux case, there is no point in me doing it.



BTW None of these people bought their gun at Dicks. So you just like
saying "dick".

As you correctly pointed out, (thank you), Cruz actually bought TEN guns
from more that just Dicks. Irrelevant exactly which store he bought
them from.

Again with Cruz, your ONE.
Tell us why all the others would have been denied. Be specific, and
try to avoid breaking HIPAA.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:48:43 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 12:59:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:41:32 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:44:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:42:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:34:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:48:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:55:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 07:29:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:30:32 -0500, devnull wrote:

FWIW, most of the gunshot victims are jugs street thugs anyway...so who
cares?

Normal people care. I assume that by "most" you mean "not
all", and include all the mass shooting, robbery and non gang-related
victims? Who doesn't care about them?
You just failed the psych test. GratZ.

It's sadly typical for a trumptard. They pretend that minorities just shoot
each other, so it doesn't matter. They ignore that many of those minorities
are just innocent bystanders, hit by mistake or someone that's targeted
because some gangbanger thinks they looked at them the wrong way. If it
were their families, they would perhaps think differently.




Maybe if we had a better way of protecting witnesses people would step
forward and they could solve a few of these murders. The conviction
rate for murders in the ghetto are around 10-15%.

The people there know who the killers are and the cops usually do too
but they can't make a case that passes the laugh test if "nobody saw
nuffin".
And that just adds another to the statistics when "justice is done"
street style. Usually adds more than one - and so often includes
innocent bystanders. Some totally innocent - some less so.

If everyone involved understands and accepts that people die and
nobody is ever going to try to get the killer off the street, it
should be in a separate statistic, not confused with murders we do
care about.

This from the guy who says the US hasn't dealt with integration after
the Civil War, that it's what is behind our horrific homicide
rate from guns. And now you just said that you only care about some
murders, so apparently you're perfectly fine with blacks killing mostly
blacks. A white person gets killed in the crossfire, do you care about
that death? Even if you're so crass as to not care about blacks killing
blacks, the deaths are not confined to just that.


Reading comprehension is not your thing.
It is the people in these communities who refuse to testify against
the killers. If they don't care, why should we?

Because it's America, we are one country, and the horrific death rate
here has enormous costs, makes us look bad, and is very wrong. You
really should make up your mind. First you say that racial integration
has not been dealt with since the Civil War, which of course is not true.
Then you claim that because people in high crime areas, which are
typically black and minority won't testify, no one should care about
what happens there.

If the people there are not willing to cooperate with law enforcement,
what should we do? You can't arrest people even if the cops know they
are murderers if nobody will actually provide them any evidence they
can use in court. You can't whine about the murder rate if you can't
take the murderers off the street. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
ANd they won't co-operate with law enforcement when they KNOW law
enforcement cannot protect them if they do.
Even if the perp is shot or hanged for it, so they can never extract
revenge, the perp's "people" will. And the poor folks in the
"projects" know that all too well.
Sadly, I'm not sure there IS a solution that does not involve keeping
guns out of the hands of the good guys as well as the bad - if even
THAT would be a solution. Might solve the GUN violence, but then
they'd find another way to wreak havok.

A solution was within reach. perhaps, 40 or more years ago, but we've
let that horse out of the barn.

You would still be left with the fact that if we take all of the gun
murders out of the statistic, we would still have a murder rate higher
than the rest of the developed democracies. That also assumes the
"gun" murderers wouldn't have just used another weapon.

Well, you got us there. Since the rate would still be higher, no point
in doing anything to lower the rate You win. Good thing you're not
working on cures for cancer. Researchers: Studies show this can lower
the cancer death rate from 40% to 25%. Fretwell: There will still be
a 25% rate, let;s not market it.

So we will punish 150,000,000 in hopes of stopping one. I see.

On 12/23/2019 10:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:57:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:36:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:37:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:41:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:13:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:47:12 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:02:09 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:16:56 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:42 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:55:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:02:28 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 18/12/2019 20:44, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:13:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

On 12/18/19 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:
Any other country would regard 45 school shootings in one year to be
horrendous. Nearly one a day.
I can only recall the UK having just 2 in its history.

The US has the weakest gun laws in the developed world.

--
Bod


It is as horrendous as your acid attacks.

There's your "yes but" bull**** defense again.
Yhe UK is not having weekly deadly attacks on multiple school children
in their schools - whether by gun, acid, knife or sarin gas doesn't
matter. It is a DISEASE in the USA - and sadly, GUNS, and in
particular automatic "assault" weapons which have NO legitimate use -
they are not hunting rifles - they are designed for one purpose, and
one purpose only - to kill people

Well put.
The "weekly attacks" are thugs in school being thugs. Some of our
schools are in combat zones. Kids in school and people outside those
schools carry guns and shoot each other. That is why you hear the
details of a shooting every year or two but they say we have one a
week. They don't want to get into the details of the others. It might
sound racist.
Not as "racist" as your vague accusatorial response. Part of the
"desease" is the teriible discrepancy between rich and poor in the USA
- and the almost institutional atempts to keep it that way. Not just
financially either.

True
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_dis tribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Old data, it's got worse with Trump's "politics".
The lower the number, the poorer the majority are in
comparison with the top 1%.
To the semi literate = GREEN is acceptable.
Any other color is not.
Kudos to Canada.
[]'s

The goal of socialism is to make everyone equally poor and dependant
on the government.

And yet the highest standard of living is in ... socialist
countries. Look up HDI. Best schools, security, healthcare, pensions,
salaries, freedom etc for the majority of the population (try to
forget the top 1%, I know you love Bill Gates, Trump, Jeff Bezos etc,
but they are NOT the average citizen).


You are talking about homogeneous white european countries. There is
more going on there than simply that they are socialist. Maybe if we
sent them several million hard core unemployable people with criminal
tendencies and a chip on their shoulder, things wouldn't be so rosy.


The US is the only country with hardcore unemployable and chips on their
shoulders? Maybe the difference is that the US has a culture that
celebrate guns, shooting, violence as part of our heritage and has
more guns per capita than anywhere else? How about Australia for
example? Plenty of minorities, hardcore unemployed there too, but
there murder rate with guns is .8 compared to our 12.


If you don't see the difference, there is no sense talking any more.
Were they born out of a revolution that overthrew the government with
force and violence?

Sure, many have. France for example and at the same time period
as the US revolution. France's homicide rate by guns, 0.2. The US 12.
The homicide rate does correlate pretty well with the rate of gun ownership
though. Funny too, the French didn't go on to live 225 years later
in paranoia feeling they need guns.

France doesn't have guns because when they drop them they might break
a toe. I have an 1886 Lebel that was never fired and only dropped
twice, once in 1914 and once in 1940.

Well, there you have it. As if the French didn't know for the last
two hundred years that fine guns are available the world over.
Including Germany and Italy, right next door.




Did any of those countries have a civil war that killed 3 % of the
population then did not deal with the original issue of integrating
the slaves for 150 years ... and counting?

We have not dealt with the issues of integration? What exactly do
you suggest we do?


We have had this discussion, Maybe not have had the war in the first
place.

That shipped sailed a hundred and fifty years ago. I asked about what
you would do now, since you claim we have not dealt with integration.




It is really not my job to say what they should have done. It
is clear we ****ed it up tho.

I'd say if you claim we have not dealt with integration, then you should
be able to tell us what we have not done, that needs to be done.

I said, it is not my problem to solve.
I am not sure there is a good answer but if you wanted to stop most of
the murders you would ban people of color from owning guns. We all
know that is unconstitutional on several points.



Are they walking distance from an active war zone in Central America
or the drug gangs in Mexico?

Have they had a failed social welfare policy for a half century?

Well, if the US is such a melting pot of violence, with all kinds of
bad actors as the result of events 150 to 225 years ago, that's an
excellent reason that we should have a reasonable permit process,
with a real background check by the local police, BEFORE anyone
can buy a gun. Why should those people you're talking about,
be able to walk into Dicks and buy guns like they were beer?
They can be hate filled, have long arrest records, known mental
problems, be drug users, yet they can buy guns just like beer?
That makes no sense to me, nor to much of America. Call me radical.


You really can't buy guns like beer. There is a required federal
background check and a number of other restrictions in GCA 68 and all
of the subsequent amendments but thanks for playing our game.


But you insist that you have to be able to walk into Dicks and buy
whatever you want, on the spot. You refuse to institute a reasonable
permit process with an actual field background check by the local police.
That's closer to buying beer than the permit processes that actually
check a person's background and that work, eg those in foreign countries
or those that are done in some states like NJ.

Your idea is to give any local LEO veto power over anyone buying a gun
on a hunch that they might not be worthy. That is not a decent answer
either.

A permit process is not only a decent answer, it's been the law in NJ for
4 decades to buy a pistol, other states, other countries too.
And the permit process is
not based on a hunch, it's based on facts that are found by the local
police doing a real background check. We don't need our guns here like
beer and cigarettes, just walk in and buy what you want.

OK all of you homicide cops in Camden, Newark and Atlantic City, go
home, we don't need you anymore, we have this law.

No, we don't have the law across the US, that's the problem, guns are
flowing into those cities from states that have no effective gun control,
like FL.


I just heard of two incidents of guns being stolen from unlocked cars.
Who is stupid enough to leave a gun in an unlocked car? Or even a
locked one. This is in a nice middle income neighborhood, not a ghetto.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:34:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:43:00 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/23/2019 12:33 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s

You poor deluded optimist... Considering selling guns in the alleys of
Detroit is only a sideline for the banger whose real product line is
crack, fentanyl, and black tar heroin, do you really think he gives a
**** about laws?

So remove all laws. What's the point of a law if it's not
going to be obeyed?

................
Only a few states, like Florida, will pursue
the gun crime because they carry stiffer mandatory minimums.
(10,20,life). All it really does is fill up the prison system....

.... with criminals. What's wrong with that? Are they too
white or something?
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 12/23/2019 02:44 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:34:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:43:00 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/23/2019 12:33 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s

You poor deluded optimist... Considering selling guns in the alleys of
Detroit is only a sideline for the banger whose real product line is
crack, fentanyl, and black tar heroin, do you really think he gives a
**** about laws?

So remove all laws. What's the point of a law if it's not
going to be obeyed?

You tell me.


.... with criminals. What's wrong with that? Are they too
white or something?
[]'s


Yeah, sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States

As the article points out 'white' is real flexible depending on who is
trying to prove what. In any case all statistics show blacks are
superbly skilled at crime. you should know that;

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brazi...r-on_b_4647204

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:48:49 AM UTC-5, devnull wrote:
On 12/23/19 10:33 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 5:30:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:57:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:36:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:32:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:37:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 11:41:23 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:13:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:47:12 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 01:02:09 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:16:56 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:01:42 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:55:10 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:02:28 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 18/12/2019 20:44, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:13:52 -0500, Bob wrote:

On 12/18/19 10:23 AM, Bod wrote:
Any other country would regard 45 school shootings in one year to be
horrendous. Nearly one a day.
I can only recall the UK having just 2 in its history.

The US has the weakest gun laws in the developed world.

--
Bod


It is as horrendous as your acid attacks.

There's your "yes but" bull**** defense again.
Yhe UK is not having weekly deadly attacks on multiple school children
in their schools - whether by gun, acid, knife or sarin gas doesn't
matter. It is a DISEASE in the USA - and sadly, GUNS, and in
particular automatic "assault" weapons which have NO legitimate use -
they are not hunting rifles - they are designed for one purpose, and
one purpose only - to kill people

Well put.
The "weekly attacks" are thugs in school being thugs. Some of our
schools are in combat zones. Kids in school and people outside those
schools carry guns and shoot each other. That is why you hear the
details of a shooting every year or two but they say we have one a
week. They don't want to get into the details of the others. It might
sound racist.
Not as "racist" as your vague accusatorial response. Part of the
"desease" is the teriible discrepancy between rich and poor in the USA
- and the almost institutional atempts to keep it that way. Not just
financially either.

True
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/2014_Gini_Index_World_Map%2C_income_inequality_dis tribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Old data, it's got worse with Trump's "politics".
The lower the number, the poorer the majority are in
comparison with the top 1%.
To the semi literate = GREEN is acceptable.
Any other color is not.
Kudos to Canada.
[]'s

The goal of socialism is to make everyone equally poor and dependant
on the government.

And yet the highest standard of living is in ... socialist
countries. Look up HDI. Best schools, security, healthcare, pensions,
salaries, freedom etc for the majority of the population (try to
forget the top 1%, I know you love Bill Gates, Trump, Jeff Bezos etc,
but they are NOT the average citizen).


You are talking about homogeneous white european countries. There is
more going on there than simply that they are socialist. Maybe if we
sent them several million hard core unemployable people with criminal
tendencies and a chip on their shoulder, things wouldn't be so rosy.


The US is the only country with hardcore unemployable and chips on their
shoulders? Maybe the difference is that the US has a culture that
celebrate guns, shooting, violence as part of our heritage and has
more guns per capita than anywhere else? How about Australia for
example? Plenty of minorities, hardcore unemployed there too, but
there murder rate with guns is .8 compared to our 12.


If you don't see the difference, there is no sense talking any more.
Were they born out of a revolution that overthrew the government with
force and violence?

Sure, many have. France for example and at the same time period
as the US revolution. France's homicide rate by guns, 0.2. The US 12.
The homicide rate does correlate pretty well with the rate of gun ownership
though. Funny too, the French didn't go on to live 225 years later
in paranoia feeling they need guns.

France doesn't have guns because when they drop them they might break
a toe. I have an 1886 Lebel that was never fired and only dropped
twice, once in 1914 and once in 1940.

Well, there you have it. As if the French didn't know for the last
two hundred years that fine guns are available the world over.
Including Germany and Italy, right next door.




Did any of those countries have a civil war that killed 3 % of the
population then did not deal with the original issue of integrating
the slaves for 150 years ... and counting?

We have not dealt with the issues of integration? What exactly do
you suggest we do?


We have had this discussion, Maybe not have had the war in the first
place.

That shipped sailed a hundred and fifty years ago. I asked about what
you would do now, since you claim we have not dealt with integration.




It is really not my job to say what they should have done. It
is clear we ****ed it up tho.

I'd say if you claim we have not dealt with integration, then you should
be able to tell us what we have not done, that needs to be done.

I said, it is not my problem to solve.
I am not sure there is a good answer but if you wanted to stop most of
the murders you would ban people of color from owning guns. We all
know that is unconstitutional on several points.



Are they walking distance from an active war zone in Central America
or the drug gangs in Mexico?

Have they had a failed social welfare policy for a half century?

Well, if the US is such a melting pot of violence, with all kinds of
bad actors as the result of events 150 to 225 years ago, that's an
excellent reason that we should have a reasonable permit process,
with a real background check by the local police, BEFORE anyone
can buy a gun. Why should those people you're talking about,
be able to walk into Dicks and buy guns like they were beer?
They can be hate filled, have long arrest records, known mental
problems, be drug users, yet they can buy guns just like beer?
That makes no sense to me, nor to much of America. Call me radical.


You really can't buy guns like beer. There is a required federal
background check and a number of other restrictions in GCA 68 and all
of the subsequent amendments but thanks for playing our game.


But you insist that you have to be able to walk into Dicks and buy
whatever you want, on the spot. You refuse to institute a reasonable
permit process with an actual field background check by the local police.
That's closer to buying beer than the permit processes that actually
check a person's background and that work, eg those in foreign countries
or those that are done in some states like NJ.

Your idea is to give any local LEO veto power over anyone buying a gun
on a hunch that they might not be worthy. That is not a decent answer
either.

A permit process is not only a decent answer, it's been the law in NJ for
4 decades to buy a pistol, other states, other countries too.
And the permit process is
not based on a hunch, it's based on facts that are found by the local
police doing a real background check. We don't need our guns here like
beer and cigarettes, just walk in and buy what you want.

OK all of you homicide cops in Camden, Newark and Atlantic City, go
home, we don't need you anymore, we have this law.

No, we don't have the law across the US, that's the problem, guns are
flowing into those cities from states that have no effective gun control,
like FL.


It's a problem the democrats created. Your team went soft on crime so
now the streets are crawling with repeat offenders.

More diversion to the wilderness. Virtually all the mass shooters,
eg five or more dead, have not been repeat offenders.

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 04:33:54 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s


Yeah that threat of jail has done such a great job in the drug war. We
just ended up with about a million people in prison for drug offenses

I see. So you're now saying that the typical American gun owner
is about the same as a drug dealer, therefore they will not comply
with new gun laws. Got it. Funny, previously I thought they were
honest, law abiding Americans, that just insist that guns be sold
over the counter like beer and cigarettes, so you can buy one on
the spur of the moment, no time for a permit process with a background
check by the local police.

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?


I haven't missed anything. A law with a permit process, like some states
already has, doesn't depend on both parties being law abiding. It relies
on gun stores and private sellers to be law abiding. Which, I thought
was the argument of the gun advocates, that almost all these people
are law abiding. So, if Cruz comes to Dicks without a permit, you're
saying they would just sell him guns without him supplying a valid permit?
If he came to you for a private sale, you'd sell him a gun without a
permit?






It is also unclear how many of those other sales would have been
blocked. You know people can move? Right?
I had a Florida driver's license 3 years before I lived here full
time.

Yaddda, yadda, yadda. Following that bizarre logic we should have
done nothing about auto deaths, nothing about drunk driving, because
it;s unclear exactly how many deaths we can prevent.


To a certain extent that is true, we have very draconian drunk driving
laws and zero tolerance in enforcement and there are still plenty of
drunks on the road.


Well, at least you're consistent. Let's stop putting out cancer drugs
too, because they only save some people, not all.








Are you going to tell me
there was no way he could have got a gun?

No, of course not. What's sad is that you don't see the fallacy in that
logic. It's like saying that because we can't end all traffic fatalities,
no point in doing reasonable measures to reduce it. Because we can't cure
all cancer, no point in trying to cure any. People die, so what. That's
your bizarre argument.




You also seem to ignore the
people who would have sailed through the New Jersey system (like the
Vegas guy) or the ones who simply killed the owner and stole the gun
like the kid in Newtown.

See the above.

OK so lets do something to punish the lawful on the off chance that it
might stop the unlawful. Like I said, you are a Bloomberg guy. Stop
and frisk anyone who looks "hinky" to you.


No one is punishing lawful people, by requiring closing the private sale
loophole or requiring a permit to buy a gun, no more than requiring a
license to drive is "punishing" anyone. Really quite amusing how the
discussion goes silly, when you have no real valid argument to make.

Certainly you are if you are telling a guy in Montana that he has to
take his neighbor to a town, that might be 50 miles away, a couple of
times and pay a hefty fee, just to sell him (or even loan him) a rusty
.22 cal single shot rifle.

Too ****ing bad. The same gun nuts would drive 200 miles to a gun
show or to look at some particular gun that a dealer had. But God
forbid they have to do it to make sure they are not selling a deadly
weapon to a mental case or criminal. Also, the above only applies
to the current system, if the private sale loophole is closed and
nothing more is done. So, thank you for helping my case again.
With my proposal, there is no reason for the seller to go anywhere.
The seller only needs to see a valid permit, supplied by the buyer.
There could be a system for the seller to verify that it's valid
online, much like one can verify an FFL license online. So, only
the buyer would have to file a permit application with the local
police and that could probably be done online too.


The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

I have no problem with any new laws having exemptions for temporary,
legitimate lending of a weapon between family members for short
periods. See how easy that was? Was Cruz a family member?

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 07:42:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 04:33:54 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s


Yeah that threat of jail has done such a great job in the drug war. We
just ended up with about a million people in prison for drug offenses

I see. So you're now saying that the typical American gun owner
is about the same as a drug dealer, therefore they will not comply
with new gun laws. Got it. Funny, previously I thought they were
honest, law abiding Americans, that just insist that guns be sold
over the counter like beer and cigarettes, so you can buy one on
the spur of the moment, no time for a permit process with a background
check by the local police.

Again you read what you want and not what is written. We were talking
about criminals and mass shooters getting guns and it is clear, if
they want a deadly weapon they will get one, whether it is a gun, a
knife or a Ryder rental truck full of fertilizer with a spritz of
diesel fuel.

On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:07:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?


I haven't missed anything. A law with a permit process, like some states
already has, doesn't depend on both parties being law abiding. It relies
on gun stores and private sellers to be law abiding. Which, I thought
was the argument of the gun advocates, that almost all these people
are law abiding. So, if Cruz comes to Dicks without a permit, you're
saying they would just sell him guns without him supplying a valid permit?
If he came to you for a private sale, you'd sell him a gun without a
permit?

With hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year (250,000-600,000
depending on who you believe), nobody needs to come to me or Dick to
get one, no questions asked. They are not filling out 4473s and
calling the feds when they sell a stolen gun.



The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

I have no problem with any new laws having exemptions for temporary,
legitimate lending of a weapon between family members for short
periods. See how easy that was? Was Cruz a family member?


Lanza was but I guess he might not have asked if he could borrow his
mother's AR before he shot her in the head.
Unfortunately none of the law makers are willing to put any wiggle
room in the definition of "transfer" and would even include renting a
gun at a range. Most of the proposals would not even let me store it
there since that would be a transfer.
That is why we say "sensible gun laws" usually aren't.

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 10:08:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 07:42:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 04:33:54 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s


Yeah that threat of jail has done such a great job in the drug war. We
just ended up with about a million people in prison for drug offenses

I see. So you're now saying that the typical American gun owner
is about the same as a drug dealer, therefore they will not comply
with new gun laws. Got it. Funny, previously I thought they were
honest, law abiding Americans, that just insist that guns be sold
over the counter like beer and cigarettes, so you can buy one on
the spur of the moment, no time for a permit process with a background
check by the local police.

Again you read what you want and not what is written. We were talking
about criminals and mass shooters getting guns and it is clear, if
they want a deadly weapon they will get one, whether it is a gun, a
knife or a Ryder rental truck full of fertilizer with a spritz of
diesel fuel.

Sure, some will. But when we have 25 dead, I want to know that we had
reasonable measures in place, a permit process, so that they could not
go buy a gun LEGALLY, like they do beer. Again, this is like saying that
because some drunks will drive drunk no matter what, we should just throw
up our hands and not take reasonable steps, steps that have worked, to
reduce deaths from DWI.

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 10:23:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:07:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?


I haven't missed anything. A law with a permit process, like some states
already has, doesn't depend on both parties being law abiding. It relies
on gun stores and private sellers to be law abiding. Which, I thought
was the argument of the gun advocates, that almost all these people
are law abiding. So, if Cruz comes to Dicks without a permit, you're
saying they would just sell him guns without him supplying a valid permit?
If he came to you for a private sale, you'd sell him a gun without a
permit?

With hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year (250,000-600,000
depending on who you believe), nobody needs to come to me or Dick to
get one, no questions asked. They are not filling out 4473s and
calling the feds when they sell a stolen gun.

BS. I know where the gun stores are here. I know how to legally buy guns
on Gunbroker.com or similar. If I wanted to buy one illegally for a mass
shooting, I would not know where to begin, would you? Would some dumb
college age kid? Where do you start? Go down to drug dealers in the hood?
MAybe they beat you up, rob you or one of them cuts a deal with cops and
rats you out. Or do you start asking around at work? Maybe one of the
people you ask knows you're acting abnormally, they call the cops. With
a permit process, that's where some deranged person is headed, a risky,
uncertain process. And even then, maybe he winds up settling for an
old revolver. The way it is now, a guy like Cruz can walk into Dicks
and buy an AR-15 on the spot, legally. Very, very different.









The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

I have no problem with any new laws having exemptions for temporary,
legitimate lending of a weapon between family members for short
periods. See how easy that was? Was Cruz a family member?


Lanza was but I guess he might not have asked if he could borrow his
mother's AR before he shot her in the head.
Unfortunately none of the law makers are willing to put any wiggle
room in the definition of "transfer" and would even include renting a
gun at a range.

What laws are you now talking about?



Most of the proposals would not even let me store it
there since that would be a transfer.
That is why we say "sensible gun laws" usually aren't.


And from their perspective, you're so whacked out and unreasonable that
you won't close the private sale loophole and you want guns to be sold
like beer. There is middle ground.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 08:19:01 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 10:08:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 07:42:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 04:33:54 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:54:50 -0500, wrote:

How do you stop private sales?

Of guns?
Easy. Mandatory 5 year jail for anyone that sells a gun
without informing the police beforehand, so they can do a background
check on both buyer and seller.
People would thing once (not twice) before selling a gun for
200 dollars illegally. If they needed to think twice they probably
shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
It's just a simple matter of amending the Constitution. It's
been done before, I believe.
[]'s


Yeah that threat of jail has done such a great job in the drug war. We
just ended up with about a million people in prison for drug offenses

I see. So you're now saying that the typical American gun owner
is about the same as a drug dealer, therefore they will not comply
with new gun laws. Got it. Funny, previously I thought they were
honest, law abiding Americans, that just insist that guns be sold
over the counter like beer and cigarettes, so you can buy one on
the spur of the moment, no time for a permit process with a background
check by the local police.

Again you read what you want and not what is written. We were talking
about criminals and mass shooters getting guns and it is clear, if
they want a deadly weapon they will get one, whether it is a gun, a
knife or a Ryder rental truck full of fertilizer with a spritz of
diesel fuel.

Sure, some will. But when we have 25 dead, I want to know that we had
reasonable measures in place, a permit process, so that they could not
go buy a gun LEGALLY, like they do beer. Again, this is like saying that
because some drunks will drive drunk no matter what, we should just throw
up our hands and not take reasonable steps, steps that have worked, to
reduce deaths from DWI.

By your logic, we should have background checks with a police veto at
the liquor store. It would certainly save more lives. Maybe all cars
should have the breatholyzer.

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 08:26:43 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 at 10:23:32 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:07:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 11:49:23 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:40:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:55:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:59:57 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:52:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:54:22 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 9:00:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 12:03:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 2:54:38 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

And how's that working? Cruz walked into Dicks and other gun stores
too (thank you Fretwell), and bought whatever he wanted to buy,
a total of ten, because it was "lawful". Translation, FL, like many
other states, has no real gun control at all, so it's lawful.





From what I read about him, the cops had been called many times. He
should have already been in jail.

For what exactly? And how would that have stopped Cruz from buying ten
guns? Let's say on one of the visits to the home where he was living
with his mother, where she called the cops, she was willing to press
charges. So, they arrest him on a disorderly person's offense.
So? He's out on $1000 bail and he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever
he wants. He gets convicted, he's fined $500. He still can go to
Dicks and buy whatever he wants. You could repeat that process many
times, he still could buy whatever he wanted. He was being treated for mental
problems, no matter, he can still go to Dicks, buy whatever he wants.
It would take a FELONY conviction
and hopefully that would make it to the NICS database in DC and
only then would he have been blocked in FL. Does that make sense to
you? As opposed to a reasonable permit process, where the abnormal
behavior, all the police calls, being treated for mental health,
were readily available and would be valid reasons to deny the permit?


So you think the cops should be able to discriminate against people
that they can't actually charge with a crime? That is a slippery
slope. I bet you are a Bloomberg guy. Just jack up anyone who looks
like they are up to no good by the cops.

It's discrimination to deny a permit to buy a gun to a guy where
the police have been to their house several times, where their mother
or roommate told them they are schizophrenic? Or where police records
show that someone was picked up for acting bizarrely and taken to
the hospital for a mental evaluation? Where, with a permit
process, the police, knowing that would dig deeper, get their mental
health records, talk to the doctors treating them? It's discrimination
to deny a permit to a guy that the cops know is an aggressive alcoholic,
who they see passed out on the street once a week, who has lost
their license from 4 DWIs? Obviously not,
we've been doing exactly that for pistol permits here in NJ for forty
years. And it's been upheld by the courts.

You seem obsessed by one guy and one case.

Not true. I pointed out that a permit process could have blocked the
recent Ohio shooter too. It would have blocked the Virginia Tech shooter,
32 dead there. Those come to mind immediately. I'll keep updating you
as we continue to have more of these at an accelerating rate.


Oh, and I just found this. The Odessa TX shooter failed the NICS check,
then bought his gun via a PRIVATE SALE. Now you can't say that the glaring
loophole, which needs to be closed, does not matter. You insist those
sales be even more like buying beer and cigarettes too.


How do you stop private sales? When you figure that out you can solve
the drug problem and all of the illegal gun sales.

Good grief, you're ability to totally distort never ends. I did not
say to stop private sales, I said they need to be subject to the same
laws, the same process as gun sales from a gun store. The most
immediate thing would be to extend the reqt for the NICS check to
private sales, which is on the list of proposals that comes up after
every mass shooting. More effective would be a uniform permit process,
across the country.



You missed the point that your law is unenforceable. Certainly 2 law
abiding citizens might go through this procedure if it was easy enough
but it isn't the law abiding that we are talking about is it?


I haven't missed anything. A law with a permit process, like some states
already has, doesn't depend on both parties being law abiding. It relies
on gun stores and private sellers to be law abiding. Which, I thought
was the argument of the gun advocates, that almost all these people
are law abiding. So, if Cruz comes to Dicks without a permit, you're
saying they would just sell him guns without him supplying a valid permit?
If he came to you for a private sale, you'd sell him a gun without a
permit?

With hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year (250,000-600,000
depending on who you believe), nobody needs to come to me or Dick to
get one, no questions asked. They are not filling out 4473s and
calling the feds when they sell a stolen gun.

BS. I know where the gun stores are here. I know how to legally buy guns
on Gunbroker.com or similar. If I wanted to buy one illegally for a mass
shooting, I would not know where to begin, would you? Would some dumb
college age kid? Where do you start? Go down to drug dealers in the hood?
MAybe they beat you up, rob you or one of them cuts a deal with cops and
rats you out. Or do you start asking around at work? Maybe one of the
people you ask knows you're acting abnormally, they call the cops. With
a permit process, that's where some deranged person is headed, a risky,
uncertain process. And even then, maybe he winds up settling for an
old revolver. The way it is now, a guy like Cruz can walk into Dicks
and buy an AR-15 on the spot, legally. Very, very different.

Just start asking around in bars. Someone will have a gun they will
sell you, no questions asked.




The way these "universal background check laws" are written, I have to
jump through the same hoops and pay the same fees to let my son in law
borrow my skeet gun as I would if I sold a total stranger an AR 15. We
have to jump through the same hoops again when he brings it back. That
is punishment.

Ok lets hear your "but...but...but"

I have no problem with any new laws having exemptions for temporary,
legitimate lending of a weapon between family members for short
periods. See how easy that was? Was Cruz a family member?


Lanza was but I guess he might not have asked if he could borrow his
mother's AR before he shot her in the head.
Unfortunately none of the law makers are willing to put any wiggle
room in the definition of "transfer" and would even include renting a
gun at a range.

What laws are you now talking about?


I suppose I could start in New Jersey.
New Jersey Revised Statutes § 2c:58-3.1 - Temporary Transfer Of
Firearms
It is illegal for me to leave my gun at my gun club in the custody of
someone else unless I stay there and supervise it and not for more
than 8 hours a day.
That "club" can't rent me a gun, only the owner of the gun, for a
maximum of 8 hours and he needs to be in constant supervision of me.
Not his employee or anyone else, the registered "natural person" who
owns that gun.

From the law
"The term "legal owner" as used in this subsection means a natural
person and does not include an organization, commercial enterprise, or
a licensed manufacturer, wholesaler or dealer of firearms".


There is also a provision for loaning a gun to another "hunter" but it
reads substantially the same except you can't rent it. It has to be a
loan with no consideration changing hands.

Most of the proposals would not even let me store it
there since that would be a transfer.
That is why we say "sensible gun laws" usually aren't.


And from their perspective, you're so whacked out and unreasonable that
you won't close the private sale loophole and you want guns to be sold
like beer. There is middle ground.


I am just talking about the way the law is written ... in your state
.... that you say should be a model for the rest of the country.
That is the problem with you knee jerkers. Your legislator says he is
writing a sensible law, then it is far from sensible. You go along
with your false sense of security. In the mean time you have cities on
the most dangerous list and illegal transfers go on there every day.