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.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 12:50:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:48:43 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 12/18/2019 7:02 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

ABC US correspondent Zoe Daniel on covering mass shootings and worrying
about her kids at school

https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/ba...sting/11795138
--
Bo


Bad as it is, she does not have to be here in the first place.

People worry so much about the gun deaths, but sweep under the rug that
in the US slightly over 100 people die every day in car accidents. Hard
telling how many get injured really bad.

Looks to me like there needs to be much more thought into how to prevent
car accidents and road rage.



We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.



Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.

You're confused again. I did not advocate banning any guns. I simply
stated many times that we need a uniform permit process across the
whole US, before anyone can buy a gun. That process would be for the
local police chief to issue the permit, after a real background check,
that includes pulling all police files on the applicant, checking with
employers, checking with schools if they are a recent grad, checking
with references, pulling mental health records if appropriate, etc.
And the permit can be denied if they have convictions, history of
non-compliance with laws, violence, are alcoholics or drug users,
have mental problems, etc. Then Cruz would not have been able to
buy his guns. It would dissuade straw purchases too, unless you
think cousin Tawanna is going to go to the local PC dept and apply
for a permit to buy 6 pistols for her cousin.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:47:44 AM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.
Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.




My logic on guns is that anyone that does not have some lawful reason
not to own a gun should have whatever he wants. No restrictions.


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.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 11:16:32 AM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Friday, December 20, 2019 at 3:13:37 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
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?

Yes. Don't underestimate the power of societal attitudes. Culture can trump character. I'd give some references but people don't read (they hide the secrets............in books!)

And societal attitudes do change over time, and are the real answer to violent crime. Just within my lifetime we've seen some major shifts in attitudes toward drunk driving (a rite of passage when I was a kid, now something no longer condoned), physical abuse of women, racism. Not that these have disappeared - but in much more of our population they are considered wrong.


You're right, maybe we'll eventually get there with guns.

In article ,
says...

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.




I don't know for sure now, but I have seen home built dune buggies that
are street legal. Some comunities even allow golf carts on the road.

Seems most anything can be put on the road if you build it yourself or
have it made just for you.

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.

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?

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:52:48 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.




I don't know for sure now, but I have seen home built dune buggies that
are street legal. Some comunities even allow golf carts on the road.

Seems most anything can be put on the road if you build it yourself or
have it made just for you.
No - the "dune buggy" is usually based on and licensed as a late
sixties or early seventies VW Beetle and therefore only needs to meet
the requirements in place at THAT time.

Communities can allow golf carts on their streets, but not on state or
other roads.

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.

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


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.

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?

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:48:56 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 12:50:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:48:43 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 12/18/2019 7:02 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

ABC US correspondent Zoe Daniel on covering mass shootings and worrying
about her kids at school

https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/ba...sting/11795138
--
Bo


Bad as it is, she does not have to be here in the first place.

People worry so much about the gun deaths, but sweep under the rug that
in the US slightly over 100 people die every day in car accidents. Hard
telling how many get injured really bad.

Looks to me like there needs to be much more thought into how to prevent
car accidents and road rage.



We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.

Bull****, I can buy a 1954 Chevy tomorrow morning and if I just want
to show it at car shows, race it on private tracks or just keep in my
garage, I don't even need a license, I don't need to register it
(title) and I don't need to get tags.
If I am willing to buy tags I can drive it anywhere I want.
OTOH if I want a 1954 machine gun there are all sorts of hoops I need
to go through and right now, processing form 4s is running around 9
months. If I lived in your state I couldn't buy a 1954 surplus M1
Carbine at all.


Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.

You're confused again. I did not advocate banning any guns. I simply
stated many times that we need a uniform permit process across the
whole US, before anyone can buy a gun. That process would be for the
local police chief to issue the permit, after a real background check,
that includes pulling all police files on the applicant, checking with
employers, checking with schools if they are a recent grad, checking
with references, pulling mental health records if appropriate, etc.
And the permit can be denied if they have convictions, history of
non-compliance with laws, violence, are alcoholics or drug users,
have mental problems, etc. Then Cruz would not have been able to
buy his guns. It would dissuade straw purchases too, unless you
think cousin Tawanna is going to go to the local PC dept and apply
for a permit to buy 6 pistols for her cousin.


You are responding to a note I wrote Bob.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:52:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:47:44 AM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.
Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.




My logic on guns is that anyone that does not have some lawful reason
not to own a gun should have whatever he wants. No restrictions.


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.


What was the problem here, a psycho or a piece of metal?

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:52:48 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.




I don't know for sure now, but I have seen home built dune buggies that
are street legal. Some comunities even allow golf carts on the road.

Seems most anything can be put on the road if you build it yourself or
have it made just for you.

Trader, Bob and the rest are confusing "taking something on the road"
with simply owning it. There are plenty of restrictions on what I have
to do to take my gun out on public streets. It is virtually impossible
in a bunch of states, including Trader's but that didn't stop two high
profile shootings in a month. (plus dozens that were not important
enough to make the news)

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:54:29 -0500, 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.


That is where Trader thinks they should be able to punish him without
any proof of a crime.

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.

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:14:32 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:52:48 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.




I don't know for sure now, but I have seen home built dune buggies that
are street legal. Some comunities even allow golf carts on the road.

Seems most anything can be put on the road if you build it yourself or
have it made just for you.
No - the "dune buggy" is usually based on and licensed as a late
sixties or early seventies VW Beetle and therefore only needs to meet
the requirements in place at THAT time.


Not true when I made mine. In fact it got titled as a half ton pickup
truck that had virtually zero restrictions at the time. (Maryland)
It started life as a 58 Beetle but it was titled as a 74 Poty Truck.
No I did not have to meet any of the 74 rules, including the seat belt
ignition interlock. It was never inspected at all. I just took in a
picture and they gave me a VIN plate that I screwed on.

In article ,
says...

Trader, Bob and the rest are confusing "taking something on the road"
with simply owning it. There are plenty of restrictions on what I have
to do to take my gun out on public streets. It is virtually impossible
in a bunch of states, including Trader's but that didn't stop two high
profile shootings in a month. (plus dozens that were not important
enough to make the news)



It all depends on the state. In NC a handgun can be carried out in the
open most anywhere but schools and government buildings and banks.

You could sling a AR-15 or shotgun over your sholder and walk down main
street. It does have to be in plain sight.

Other states make you almost take it apart and have it locked in the
trunk of your car.

In article ,
says...

That is where Trader thinks they should be able to punish him without
any proof of a crime.



There was some proof of a crime. He had threatened to kill some people.
They could have put him under a bond and he would have had to surrender
any guns he had and would not be able to buy one legally.

There were several other laws he had broken he could have been charged
with and needed that same type of bond.

It was a clear case the police did not do their job.
Just too many law breakers and not enough police.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:14:36 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:52:48 -0500, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.




I don't know for sure now, but I have seen home built dune buggies that
are street legal. Some comunities even allow golf carts on the road.

Seems most anything can be put on the road if you build it yourself or
have it made just for you.
No - the "dune buggy" is usually based on and licensed as a late
sixties or early seventies VW Beetle and therefore only needs to meet
the requirements in place at THAT time.

Communities can allow golf carts on their streets, but not on state or
other roads.

We also have electric vehicles that are not much more than big golf cars
allowed on the streets of some towns here in NJ. They are limited to
towns where the speed limit is 35 or less. Think it's 35, might be 25.
Not a lot of them, but I do see some here and there at the shore.

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.






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.

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.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:48:56 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 12:50:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:48:43 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 12/18/2019 7:02 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

ABC US correspondent Zoe Daniel on covering mass shootings and worrying
about her kids at school

https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/ba...sting/11795138
--
Bo


Bad as it is, she does not have to be here in the first place.

People worry so much about the gun deaths, but sweep under the rug that
in the US slightly over 100 people die every day in car accidents. Hard
telling how many get injured really bad.

Looks to me like there needs to be much more thought into how to prevent
car accidents and road rage.



We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.

Bull****, I can buy a 1954 Chevy tomorrow morning and if I just want
to show it at car shows, race it on private tracks or just keep in my
garage, I don't even need a license, I don't need to register it
(title) and I don't need to get tags.
If I am willing to buy tags I can drive it anywhere I want.

You talk about my reading comprehension? I said you can't BUILD a piece
of crap, unsafe car, no air bags, no seat belts. And before you jump
on that from some other angle, the discussion was in the context of
vehicles on the ROAD.




OTOH if I want a 1954 machine gun there are all sorts of hoops I need
to go through and right now, processing form 4s is running around 9
months. If I lived in your state I couldn't buy a 1954 surplus M1
Carbine at all.


Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.

You're confused again. I did not advocate banning any guns. I simply
stated many times that we need a uniform permit process across the
whole US, before anyone can buy a gun. That process would be for the
local police chief to issue the permit, after a real background check,
that includes pulling all police files on the applicant, checking with
employers, checking with schools if they are a recent grad, checking
with references, pulling mental health records if appropriate, etc.
And the permit can be denied if they have convictions, history of
non-compliance with laws, violence, are alcoholics or drug users,
have mental problems, etc. Then Cruz would not have been able to
buy his guns. It would dissuade straw purchases too, unless you
think cousin Tawanna is going to go to the local PC dept and apply
for a permit to buy 6 pistols for her cousin.


You are responding to a note I wrote Bob.

On that point you are correct, my mistake.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:50:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:52:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 10:47:44 AM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...
We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.
Using your logic on guns, they should ban any car that is capable of
going over the speed limit and whole classes of cars, suvs and trucks
should be banned outright because nobody "needs" to drive a race car,
a truck or a military like vehicle. People should have to show a need
to even own a car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you actually support that tho.




My logic on guns is that anyone that does not have some lawful reason
not to own a gun should have whatever he wants. No restrictions.


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.


What was the problem here, a psycho or a piece of metal?

Neither. The problem was FL has no permit process to buy a gun,
where a real, field background check by the local police is performed.
If Cruz lived in NJ or some other states, he never would have been
able to do that.

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.

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 11:16:00 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

Trader, Bob and the rest are confusing "taking something on the road"
with simply owning it.

No, I'm not. The discussion on cars was about cars on the ROAD. That is
the context of what I replied to.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:27:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:45:53 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

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?





He could have been out on bond, but could not have any guns as a
condition of the bond.

So, rather than look at each person that wants to actually buy a gun,
you too think there should be a huge big govt database in DC that now
will include anyone arrested for disorderly conduct? The NRA will
never agree to it, it sure looks highly dubious to me too. When
Brinks wants to hire a guard or a defense contractor needs a security
clearance for someone, do they turn to one database in DC that has
millions of people in it? No, they those are handled by a real background
check of the one individual that's applying.

You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

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.

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?

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:45:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:49:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:48:56 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 12:50:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 19:48:43 -0800, Bob F wrote:

On 12/18/2019 7:02 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

ABC US correspondent Zoe Daniel on covering mass shootings and worrying
about her kids at school

https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/ba...sting/11795138
--
Bo


Bad as it is, she does not have to be here in the first place.

People worry so much about the gun deaths, but sweep under the rug that
in the US slightly over 100 people die every day in car accidents. Hard
telling how many get injured really bad.

Looks to me like there needs to be much more thought into how to prevent
car accidents and road rage.



We have done a LOT more about car accidents than we have gun incidents.

But nobody has talked about banning ANY KIND of car.

Sure we have. You can't build a piece of crap, unsafe car, no
air bags, no seat belts.

Bull****, I can buy a 1954 Chevy tomorrow morning and if I just want
to show it at car shows, race it on private tracks or just keep in my
garage, I don't even need a license, I don't need to register it
(title) and I don't need to get tags.
If I am willing to buy tags I can drive it anywhere I want.

You talk about my reading comprehension? I said you can't BUILD a piece
of crap, unsafe car, no air bags, no seat belts. And before you jump
on that from some other angle, the discussion was in the context of
vehicles on the ROAD.



Then the context of guns should only be the ones you can carry in
public.

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.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:58:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 11:16:00 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

Trader, Bob and the rest are confusing "taking something on the road"
with simply owning it.

No, I'm not. The discussion on cars was about cars on the ROAD. That is
the context of what I replied to.

Then you have to talk about guns that are legal to carry on the street
and that is a pretty extensive background check in most states.
(fingerprints, photo ID, abusive fees, regular renewals and a local
LEO sign off, pretty much what you want)

In article ,
says...

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.



I would think guns are like drugs. If you have the right connections
and money , you can get most anything. Certain drugs are totally
illegal and there are 'tons' of them around.

I have bought several guns from strangers over the years. Another one
or two from friends that wanted money or wanted to try something else.

On 12/22/2019 9:54 AM, 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.

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.


--
Get off my lawn!

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.

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.* Lock 'em up or euthanize 'em.




My feelings too. 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.

Seems the laws are sort of backwards. I see where the age to do that
vapeing ( electronic smoking) age was raised to 21.

Seems that the younger people are too stupid to make that decision or to
take a drink , but are able to vote at 18. I can see where the voting
age should be 18 as that is where you could be drafted into the military
when the draft was active. YOu should be able to vote if you are going
to have to fight for something the government wants. Maybe the
government should have raised the draft age to 21. However the
government wants people that are not old enough to do much thinking for
their seleves to be the ground pounders.

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. 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.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:17:39 -0500, 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. 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.

Seems the laws are sort of backwards. I see where the age to do that
vapeing ( electronic smoking) age was raised to 21.

Seems that the younger people are too stupid to make that decision or to
take a drink , but are able to vote at 18. I can see where the voting
age should be 18 as that is where you could be drafted into the military
when the draft was active. YOu should be able to vote if you are going
to have to fight for something the government wants. Maybe the
government should have raised the draft age to 21. However the
government wants people that are not old enough to do much thinking for
their seleves to be the ground pounders.


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.

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.

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 11:30:30 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 06:27:08 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 3:45:53 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

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?





He could have been out on bond, but could not have any guns as a
condition of the bond.

So, rather than look at each person that wants to actually buy a gun,
you too think there should be a huge big govt database in DC that now
will include anyone arrested for disorderly conduct? The NRA will
never agree to it, it sure looks highly dubious to me too. When
Brinks wants to hire a guard or a defense contractor needs a security
clearance for someone, do they turn to one database in DC that has
millions of people in it? No, they those are handled by a real background
check of the one individual that's applying.

You mean a real background check like Snowden or Manning passed with
flying colors?

Following that logic, because security clearances will fail to prevent
bad things from happening a very small percentage of the time, we should
have no security clearance checks at all. Got it.

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.