On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:16:51 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:59:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

'What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

I comprehend the part that you don't.

Start by looking up the historical meaning of "infringed." It meant
"to defeat" or "to invalidate" the exercise of something, like a right
or a license. If you're going to rely on original meaning, you need to
understand the historical meaning of the words.


Tsk tsk tsk....once again you play fast and loose.

I plonked Old Eddie several years ago when he went insane and, I
firmly believe, tried to have me arrested by trying to incite me. THAT
is entrapment, and to that end, I say "**** him."

He's so totally anti-NRA (aren't we all, a bit? pro-intention but
anti-admin) that he's foolishly and voluntarily giving up his (and
_our_) rights.

Things are much better with him in the bit bucket.

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:10:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:42:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:07:48 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 2/1/2013 1:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:


snip


Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more
difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the
crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. A background check might help there, but not registration.

================================================== ====================
(EH)

Registration is about restricting the transfer of guns from legal
purchasers to criminals.

No, it is not. It's about massively intrusive government getting set up
to confiscate guns.

That makes you a paranoid delusional, Delvin. There is no evidence
that the US government intends to confiscate guns. What they're trying
to do is to dry up the supply of guns to criminals. They've said it,
and there is nothing sensible to refute it.

In other words, you've earned a spot in the Gun Nutz bucket.

Eddy is in Denial again. He must have gotten a gig from Chucky Schumer
again. How many pieces of silver is he paying you Eddy?

Gunner

How are your other paranoid delusions sooking, Gunner? How's that
"Great Cull"? That was supposed to happen sometime last year, wasn't
it? Did the cullers get stuck in traffic? ggg!

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

What you have to worry about is public opinions, like these:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...c-support.html

Every time Wayne LaPierre or one of the other wind-up dildos opens his
mouth, the anti-gun sentiment seems to inch a little higher. The
public is beginning to realize that the spokesmen for the pro-gun
cause actually are a little crazy. Or maybe a lot crazy.

That's what will bite you in the ass, in the long run. And if you guys
keep it up, it will bite all of us.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:30:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:16:51 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:59:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

'What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

I comprehend the part that you don't.

Start by looking up the historical meaning of "infringed." It meant
"to defeat" or "to invalidate" the exercise of something, like a right
or a license. If you're going to rely on original meaning, you need to
understand the historical meaning of the words.


Tsk tsk tsk....once again you play fast and loose.

I plonked Old Eddie several years ago when he went insane and, I
firmly believe, tried to have me arrested by trying to incite me. THAT
is entrapment, and to that end, I say "**** him."

You nutjob. YOU were the one who said people should threaten their
congressmen with guns. You sailed off into loonyland all by yourself.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to have you arrested, Larry. Once I
found out you were serious -- I asked you two or three times because I
couldn't believe it -- I just plonked you until I cooled off.


He's so totally anti-NRA (aren't we all, a bit? pro-intention but
anti-admin) that he's foolishly and voluntarily giving up his (and
_our_) rights.

Things are much better with him in the bit bucket.

I'm sure they are, for you. I don't take kindly to people who want to
shoot duly elected representatives. My ancestors fought in numerous
wars, including the American Revolution, so we could have a republic
with democratic representation. I'll honor their commitment, even when
I'm revolted by some of the things those democratically elected
representatives do. It's all anyone's got -- unless you want mob rule
at the point of a gun. Some Russians tried that a while back.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 11:54:38 AM UTC-5, Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:



Third, 100% registration at the time of sale, new or used, commercial or

private sale, and creation of a database available to police. What that will

do is enable the easy tracking of guns back to the last legal purchaser.

Then find out what happened to the gun when that purchaser last had it. If

it was stolen, find out if the theft was reported within 48 hours of the

owner's awareness. If not, he gets a hefty fine. And no theft should go

unreported after any three-month period. That's long enough for any gun

owner to check his inventory and to notice if any gun is missing. Again, a

hefty fine if he reported his guns intact and it's discovered that a theft

occurred a year ago. That will be harder to prove, but it's a reasonable

imposition of responsibility. Once people know the law is serious about

this, I would expect a big jump in securing guns well and a heightened sense

of how seriously we all take it.



Utter bull****.



I know of far too many cases where firearms were stolen from people

who had them and never knew they were gone. An example was an elderly

woman who had her husbands guns in a locker out in the garage for 30

yrs after his passing. When she died..her next of kin went looking

for Grampas guns. And they were nowhere to be found. Some 20 of them.



I had 5 removed from one of my storage containers and only knew when

Taft PD called me asking me if I was missing a S&W 1917 45ACP

revolver. When I went to check..I found another 3 handguns and a

rifle gone. They were simply part of the collection...which is fairly

extensive.

And those are perfect examples of what Ed & I were talking about. Guns that were stolen from people who didn't know they had been stolen are now in the hands of criminals, and by the time the theft was discovered, it may be too late to begin a reasonable recovery. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to be irresponsible with them. How is it an infringement of your rights to require a periodic inventory? If the theft is discovered in a timely manner, the chances are much better that the stolen gun will be recovered.

It is your choice to keep deadly weapons in your home. I wouldn't have a problem with that if you could take the responsibility to ensure that they stay out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

As a small business owner, I have to periodically inventory many things, right down to then number, position and salaries of my employees. I don't enjoy doing it, in some cases it's just a matter of copying the data from last period's forms, but I do it just the same - it's part of the cost of doing business, and it's not going to break the bank. Asking gun owners to perform a regular inventory of their weapons doesn't sound like an onerous task, nor does it sound lik any sort of step towards eventual confiscation.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:06:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Ever seen what a Supreme Presentation engraved, Browning Centenial
shotgun/rifle looks like after it's been owned by a sucession of meth
freaks for 2 decades?


As bad as mind on liberalism for a month, that has holes corroded
through the vital spots & enough rust to make 50 miles of video tape?

When I saw it...I nearly cried. They are worth something like $10,000
each.

The insurance company pitched a bitch about paying the stuff off too.
And he had a commercial policy with each and every weapon listed.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:23:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:40:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


No, anyone applying for a background check could be a first-time gun buyer.

Records for successful purchasers must be destroyed in 24 hours. That is,
federal records. In some states, you have a de facto registration because
you have to fill out a purchase form (handguns in NJ, for example) for which
the *state* retains a copy.

Dealers must...must store a copy of the 4473. If/when they go out of
business..those forms are boxed up and shipped to the ATF, at which
point they are entered into their computer system. Often times, quite
badly entered..ie replete with errors that in later will bite someone
in the ass.

Unless the business is sold or goes out of business, they exist only
in the "bound book" at the FFL holder's place of business. The ATF has
no way to go looking for a record on a particular serial number except
by starting with the manufacturer, going through the records of any
wholesaler, and then learning who the retailer was. After that, it's a
field trip to the retailer to go through their bound book.

That's a system designed (by the NRA) to defeat the tracing of guns by
overburdening the system with expense and legwork. The NRA succeeded
in their effort. It requires a large, and very expensive, effort to
find the first purchaser of just one gun.

And then, more often that not, if the original purchaser is found, it
is learned that the gun was "stolen," with no legal consequences to
him. Or he gave it to his brother as a gift, who *swore* that he was a
legal purchaser.

If you wanted to design a system that choked off the legal ways to
trace a gun, and that made it all but impossible to prosecute straw
purchasers, you couldn't do much better.


This is Federally done. At any time an ATF investigator can come in
and "review" the 4473s and take whatever "notes" he/she desires..in
some cases..using a portable scanner and scanning just about anything
they want...and occasionally....scanning EVERY 4473.

That is legal as well.

And if he's trying to track down a gun used in a crime, how does
"reviewing" one of the 65,000 or so gun-dealing FFL holders help? How
does the ATF know which one they're looking for? Or do they just go to
all 65,000 at once?

Somebody wasn't using their head when they let the NRA get away with
that one.

So you are admitting that the ATF is going into gunstores on fishing
expeditions?

Is that your admission?

I have no idea what they're looking for on those trips, and neither do
you. I suspect, though, that one purpose is that it's the way they
identify FFL holders who are supplying a disproportionate number of
guns that wind up in criminal hands. They do report that some small
percentage of FFL holders sell an extraordinarily high percentage of
guns confiscated from criminals.

However, you do have a vivid, and paranoid, imagination. d8-)

AFAIC, I'd prefer if they didn't have to go in at all. They should
have 100% of those records in their database -- the failed ones, plus
the approved ones, with complete data on any gun(s) purchased.

Then they'd have a start on tracking down straw purchasers and they'd
have the evidence needed to prosecute a lot of gun thieves.

Mostly, it would make straw purchasing a high-risk criminal
enterprise. That's good.

Hey, I have to go now, Gunner. My assignment started coming in and I
just got another one. I'll be busy for a long time.

Hasta luego.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

What question? I thought you were making a joke about Gunner's failure
to secure his guns (there were nine, actually, in his statement; I see
that the 20 referred to another case). It looked like you were asking
tongue-in-cheek.

Now that I know you were serious -- an absurdity in itself -- the
answer is, prima facie, yes. It happens an average of 230,000 times a
year, according to the FBI.

Now do you see why I thought your question was a joke? It was, but you
didn't realize it, apparently.

If you look, you'll find police reports referring to guns stolen from
houses in which the guns were in a "cabinet," or a closet, or
wherever. We know that thieves have several ways to break into a
house. It happens thousands of times each year.

Some of us are a lot more careful and have our guns well secured. But
in millions of cases over the years, law-abiding gun owners haven't.

Thus, we have a vast criminal market of guns.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote in
news
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

What question?

The question I asked in my post, Ed.

I thought you were making a joke about Gunner's failure
to secure his guns (there were nine, actually, in his statement; I see
that the 20 referred to another case). It looked like you were asking
tongue-in-cheek.

No, it was a straight-up question.

Maybe you should do something to address your reading comprehension problems
before you post again.

Now that I know you were serious -- an absurdity in itself -- the
answer is, prima facie, yes. It happens an average of 230,000 times a
year, according to the FBI.

The absurdity here, Ed, is that you think that people who don't have the good sense to lock
up valuable or dangerous things will suddenly acquire that good sense as the result of
passing a law. It's *already* against the law to break into someone's house and steal guns,
Ed, and that doesn't stop people from doing it -- why do you think *more* laws will make a
difference?

Now do you see why I thought your question was a joke? It was, but you
didn't realize it, apparently.

The only joke here is that you take your own naive beliefs seriously.

If you look, you'll find police reports referring to guns stolen from
houses in which the guns were in a "cabinet," or a closet, or
wherever. We know that thieves have several ways to break into a
house. It happens thousands of times each year.

Some of us are a lot more careful and have our guns well secured. But
in millions of cases over the years, law-abiding gun owners haven't.

Thus, we have a vast criminal market of guns.

And in the fantasy world you live in, passing a law is suffficient to solve the problem.

What color is the sky on your world, Ed? [Since you have trouble telling the difference...
perhaps I'd better tell you that *that* was not a serious question.]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:43:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:30:42 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:16:51 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:59:25 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:46:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Are you catching on yet? You keep repeating your silly mantra that
"criminals don't care if their guns are registered," missing the point that
the purpose is to keep those guns out of criminal hands with a sensible
system of deterrents.

Maybe you should run for the NRA Board. You'd fit right in. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

'What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

I comprehend the part that you don't.

Start by looking up the historical meaning of "infringed." It meant
"to defeat" or "to invalidate" the exercise of something, like a right
or a license. If you're going to rely on original meaning, you need to
understand the historical meaning of the words.


Tsk tsk tsk....once again you play fast and loose.

I plonked Old Eddie several years ago when he went insane and, I
firmly believe, tried to have me arrested by trying to incite me. THAT
is entrapment, and to that end, I say "**** him."

You nutjob. YOU were the one who said people should threaten their
congressmen with guns. You sailed off into loonyland all by yourself.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to have you arrested, Larry. Once I
found out you were serious -- I asked you two or three times because I
couldn't believe it -- I just plonked you until I cooled off.


He's so totally anti-NRA (aren't we all, a bit? pro-intention but
anti-admin) that he's foolishly and voluntarily giving up his (and
_our_) rights.

Things are much better with him in the bit bucket.

I'm sure they are, for you. I don't take kindly to people who want to
shoot duly elected representatives. My ancestors fought in numerous
wars, including the American Revolution, so we could have a republic
with democratic representation. I'll honor their commitment, even when
I'm revolted by some of the things those democratically elected
representatives do. It's all anyone's got -- unless you want mob rule
at the point of a gun. Some Russians tried that a while back.

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

Im thinking he is going senile.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.


Odd...we are quite well down the list. You arent bigoted against
Mexico are you? Gun bans...mega murders....


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


And it doesn't seem to curtail auto deaths, does it?

Yeah, it probably does. Our rate (8.5 deaths/billion vehicle- km) is
in the same range as other developed countries with good licensing,
traffic laws, and enforcement.

So you are saying that simple ownership of a device doesnt count?

Then whats our murder rate per rounds fired?

Hummmmm?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


How many "automobile accidents" are actually accidents and not caused
by unsafe driving acts?

So you'd prefer to hold drivers responsible? I don't disagree. The
anguish of a parent whose kid was killed by a drunk driver (I know two
of them personally) is similar to that of a parent of a kid who was
killed by someone with a gun who shot indiscriminately. I suspect that
it's worse if they were shot *intentionally*. That must be utterly
devastating. I've been listening to the parents of those kids in
Newtown and they sound worse than shattered.

I also hold gun owners responsible for keeping their guns out of the
hands of criminals -- like they do in the countries whose gun laws so
many gun-rightists seem to admire.


Then you believe that Hertz and Avis and even dealerships should be
responsible for any death or injury involving any vehicles sold/rented
by them?

Hows that working out for you?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Several things. For example, the time I hit two little girls, ages 8
and 10, near Montreal. They didn't die, but one suffered a broken leg.

How much prison time did you do?

Obviously it was your fault. Your vehicle should have been stored in
a block of cement.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?


Its that "properly" part that Edward has some very "special" views on.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:54:07 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Ed simply cant keep from lying can he?

Rather pitiful isnt it?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in news:ii4ug89520098ipdia64nh4fucrsc62biv@
4ax.com:

But how about writing laws to punish the evil doers.
"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. One unintended, but entirely predictable,
consequence of that proposal would be a dramatic increase in murders -- as street thugs
decide that since the penalties are the same for armed robbery and for murder, they might as
well ensure that there are no witnesses to their crimes.


Ayup


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

If we'd allow our cops to simply take out the murderers (Y'know, the
guys who still have the guns/knives in their hands at the murder
site), instead of carefully taking them into custody to stand trial,
the murders would quickly clear up. Zero Recidivism Starts Here.


Odd...we are quite well down the list. You arent bigoted against
Mexico are you? Gun bans...mega murders....

'They' always say "Oh, but Mexico has drug cartels." thinking that
explains everything. Cracks me up. If you look at our own data,
removing the suicides, the majority of the homicides are committed by
none other than the gangs, many of whom work for the cartels. There
aren't that many actual homicides by plain folks.

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:32:09 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 23:10:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:42:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:07:48 -0800, Delvin Benet ýt wrote:

On 2/1/2013 1:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Delvin Benet" wrote in message
.. .

On 2/1/2013 10:56 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:07:18 PM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:
On 2/1/2013 6:14 AM, rangerssuck wrote:

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:06:08 AM UTC-5, Delvin Benet wrote:


snip


Laws should be passed ONLY if they have some logical connection with the

goal to be achieved. Gun registration has *no* connection with

preventing gun violence. It doesn't even serve a useful purpose for

trying to capture and prosecute people who commit gun crimes.

Gun registration would help to achieve those goals by making it more
difficult for criminals to get the guns that they use to commit the
crimes.

No, it wouldn't make it more difficult in the least. A criminal who
steals a gun doesn't know, nor care, if that gun is registered or not.
And registration doesn't prevent, deter or discourage a criminal from
buying a gun. A background check might help there, but not registration.

================================================== ====================
(EH)

Registration is about restricting the transfer of guns from legal
purchasers to criminals.

No, it is not. It's about massively intrusive government getting set up
to confiscate guns.

That makes you a paranoid delusional, Delvin. There is no evidence
that the US government intends to confiscate guns. What they're trying
to do is to dry up the supply of guns to criminals. They've said it,
and there is nothing sensible to refute it.

In other words, you've earned a spot in the Gun Nutz bucket.

Eddy is in Denial again. He must have gotten a gig from Chucky Schumer
again. How many pieces of silver is he paying you Eddy?

Gunner

How are your other paranoid delusions sooking, Gunner? How's that
"Great Cull"? That was supposed to happen sometime last year, wasn't
it? Did the cullers get stuck in traffic? ggg!

Nope..someone made a very good case that it will happen this year and
on reflection..I agreed. We are only 30 odd days into the new
year..so the clock is ticking.

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. Thats hardly surprising. In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

Yet you approve of cops.

What you have to worry about is public opinions, like these:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...c-support.html

Every time Wayne LaPierre or one of the other wind-up dildos opens his
mouth, the anti-gun sentiment seems to inch a little higher. The
public is beginning to realize that the spokesmen for the pro-gun
cause actually are a little crazy. Or maybe a lot crazy.

That's what will bite you in the ass, in the long run. And if you guys
keep it up, it will bite all of us.

Odd..Ill be sitting on my front porch..feet up on the rail and playing
happy riffs on the banjo with each reported increase of the body count
as the People murder the Leftwingers.

Tell me Eddy...just how are the Leftwingers going to
regulate/legislate/ban all dem ebil guns when they are the targets of
185,000,000 armed and ****ed off citizens.
Let me rephrase that..given that only 10% of the People were involved
in fighting during the First American Revolution..we can probably
expect another 10% fo be involved in the Second American Revolution.

35,000,000 armed, ****ed and merciless men and women who decide to
simply wipe out the Leftwingers and gun grabbers.

Think the "Law" will mean dick to them as they simply
hang/shoot/burn/blowup/stab/beat/drag each and every
Leftwinger/Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Socialist they can get their
hands on?

Lets see..we have a total..total military force of 2.5 million in all
branches of service..and another 250,000 in "law enforcement" and they
themselves tend to be 80% conservative and really ****ing unhappy with
the current crop of Leftwinger/Liberal/Progressive/Marxist/Socialists.
So its a very good chance that they will simply either stay in
barracks..or simply drive on by an impromptu "termination" if they
encounter one. Give that the gang bangers, KKK clowns and other trash
are on the Termination List...it will be doing them a favor.

Im sure some wont be able to stomach it. Shrug. Gonna be rough for
them as long as they last. Which unfortunately wont be long. On the
other hand..some agencies...it will be a very good thing when they are
gone. Shrug.

Revolutions are a nasty bloody bit of work..and as Mr Jefferson
said...we are long...long over due.

"....... have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into
every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at
length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the
ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.

Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in
the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an
instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's
motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we
should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be
all, & always well informed.

The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the
importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There
has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a
half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a
half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties
if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people
preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts,
pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or
two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure"

Jefferson..a very smart dead guy.


Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in news:0kiug85lt4b3usuc2f34mfmjn0u030muo4@
4ax.com:

And how many vehicle deaths did we have last year? 42,000 +

Wrong as usual, Gummer -- the actual figure is slightly less than 36,000.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+vehicle+deaths+us+2012

Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures. And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

Dont like it?

Tough.

Gunner


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

If we'd allow our cops to simply take out the murderers (Y'know, the
guys who still have the guns/knives in their hands at the murder
site), instead of carefully taking them into custody to stand trial,
the murders would quickly clear up. Zero Recidivism Starts Here.


They killed the ass who shot that school bus driver and kidnaped a
five year old in Alabama. No trial, no lawyers & no tax money wasted on
prison time. No book deals for the perp, and the kid is alive.

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


And it doesn't seem to curtail auto deaths, does it?

Yeah, it probably does. Our rate (8.5 deaths/billion vehicle- km) is
in the same range as other developed countries with good licensing,
traffic laws, and enforcement.

So you are saying that simple ownership of a device doesnt count?

Then whats our murder rate per rounds fired?


A lot lower than the lies per editor.

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Several things. For example, the time I hit two little girls, ages 8
and 10, near Montreal. They didn't die, but one suffered a broken leg.

How much prison time did you do?

Obviously it was your fault. Your vehicle should have been stored in
a block of cement.


With him in it?

Gunner wrote:

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

I'm thinking he is going senile.


Going? He bought a home there.

Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. Thats hardly surprising. In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.


I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

If we'd allow our cops to simply take out the murderers (Y'know, the
guys who still have the guns/knives in their hands at the murder

Cops, as well as ordinary citizens are already allowed to do exactly that, and it occurs about 550 times per year.

site), instead of carefully taking them into custody to stand trial,
the murders would quickly clear up. Zero Recidivism Starts Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...#United_States

"A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would largely not be considered justifiable."

On Feb 4, 3:55*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. *Thats hardly surprising. * *In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

* *I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. *The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. *it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

As annoying and whacked out as Huntress can be, I'll bet he doesn't
have badly leaking roofs like you do, Terrell. Huntress's biggest
problem is that he's book smart and gives those who write books way
too much credit. An example would be John Edwards who wrote one of the
better books on engine rebuilding for Sunnen. Edwards is just now
beginning to get real world smart and he's got a long, long way to go.

http://www.engine-machining.com/

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:04:06 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
news
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:26 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
om:

If there was [a gun registration system], and if the original
owners were legally responsbible to control their guns (as in
Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd have a lot fewer
stolen guns.

Oh, come on, Ed, don't be ridiculous. Do you *really* think that
the prospect of losing a valuable possession is insufficient
incentive to secure it properly, that people won't secure their
property properly unless the law requires them to?

g Do you mean like the 20 guns that Gunner supplied to the nation's
criminals? Of were you referring to the other 230,000 that are stolen
each year?

Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

What question?

The question I asked in my post, Ed.

I thought you were making a joke about Gunner's failure
to secure his guns (there were nine, actually, in his statement; I see
that the 20 referred to another case). It looked like you were asking
tongue-in-cheek.

No, it was a straight-up question.

Maybe you should do something to address your reading comprehension problems
before you post again.

Now that I know you were serious -- an absurdity in itself -- the
answer is, prima facie, yes. It happens an average of 230,000 times a
year, according to the FBI.

The absurdity here, Ed, is that you think that people who don't have the good sense to lock
up valuable or dangerous things will suddenly acquire that good sense as the result of
passing a law. It's *already* against the law to break into someone's house and steal guns,
Ed, and that doesn't stop people from doing it -- why do you think *more* laws will make a
difference?

Now do you see why I thought your question was a joke? It was, but you
didn't realize it, apparently.

The only joke here is that you take your own naive beliefs seriously.

If you look, you'll find police reports referring to guns stolen from
houses in which the guns were in a "cabinet," or a closet, or
wherever. We know that thieves have several ways to break into a
house. It happens thousands of times each year.

Some of us are a lot more careful and have our guns well secured. But
in millions of cases over the years, law-abiding gun owners haven't.

Thus, we have a vast criminal market of guns.

And in the fantasy world you live in, passing a law is suffficient to solve the problem.

What color is the sky on your world, Ed? [Since you have trouble telling the difference...
perhaps I'd better tell you that *that* was not a serious question.]

Sorry, Doug. I did indeed misread your post. I thought you were saying
that the potential loss of valuable weapons would be enough incentive,
but I see that's not what you were saying at all.

About the question of how effective it would be to hold owners
responsible for a loss: I'd suggest that depends on how serious the
fine was. What's the cost to society of a gun in the hands of a
criminal? Would $1,000 and a mandatory gun-safety and responsibility
course, like the driver courses that high-points drivers have to go
through, be about right? I think that would have an effect.

Having lived in Switzerland for close to a year, the lesson I think we
can take from their experience is that they've maintained a vastly
different gun culture, one that involves widespread gun ownership
combined with relatively (relative to the US, that is) gun crime and
accident rates. Things like responsibility to keep your guns under
your control are part of it. It's imprinted into their system.

I think that could be done here, if we had something like the
introduction to guns that I went through as a kid in PA: NRA Safe
Hunter, PBA-sponsored Junior DCM; Boy Scout Marksmanship Merit Badge;
and the local gun culture in general.

A lot of things have changed but responsibility was a big part of it.
Now we have yahoos going into a gun shop and buying their first gun,
having someone tell them how to shoot it, and then going home to
exercise their "Second Amendment Rights." Without a clue.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner wrote in news:c0h0h81cki4mc0t0dmd0tb7jandt7nftf0@
4ax.com:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in news:0kiug85lt4b3usuc2f34mfmjn0u030muo4
@
4ax.com:

And how many vehicle deaths did we have last year? 42,000 +

Wrong as usual, Gummer -- the actual figure is slightly less than 36,000.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+vehicle+deaths+us+2012

Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures.

No, you weren't. You were just making stuff up.

How do I know that? Because I know what the 2010 figures a 35,332.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...10_release.pdf

And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

Really? Cite your sources, please.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

No, it is not. It's "far less" only when compared to your made-up numbers for motor vehicle
deaths, not when compared to the actual numbers.

Gunner wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:06:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Ever seen what a Supreme Presentation engraved, Browning Centenial
shotgun/rifle looks like after it's been owned by a sucession of meth
freaks for 2 decades?


As bad as mind on liberalism for a month, that has holes corroded
through the vital spots & enough rust to make 50 miles of video tape?

When I saw it...I nearly cried. They are worth something like $10,000
each.


I know that feeling. Something got into my lovingly restored '66 GTO
while I was in the Army and destroyed the headliner & interior. It was
like a kick to the stomach as I saw the damage. It was locked in my
dad's garage, and he had left the window down when he went out to start
it a week before I got home.


The insurance company pitched a bitch about paying the stuff off too.
And he had a commercial policy with each and every weapon listed.


Insurance companies are run by & for lawyers. What else can you
expect?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:19:08 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:55*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. *Thats hardly surprising. * *In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.

And that's a recommendation?? g


* *I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees.

Oh, go pound sand up your ass, Terrell. You're obnoxious.

I talk to the janitors in my wife's school every week or so. They're
fine, responsible guys, but they sure as hell don't have college
degrees.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:49:03 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Its interesting that Eddy has all the words..but fully approves of all
those unconstitutional Executive Orders and considers the 2nd
Amendment to be simply trash talk.

I'm thinking he is going senile.

Going? He bought a home there.

Several years back.


--
If more sane people were armed,
crazy people would get off fewer shots.
Support the 2nd Amendment

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:30:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in news:0kiug85lt4b3usuc2f34mfmjn0u030muo4@
4ax.com:

And how many vehicle deaths did we have last year? 42,000 +

Wrong as usual, Gummer -- the actual figure is slightly less than 36,000.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+vehicle+deaths+us+2012

Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures. And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

Dont like it? Tough.

He doesn't accept the real figure of 11k vs 42k, which isn't 12% by
any means. I guess 12,000 deaths aren't considerable to him, in his
style of math.

I guess we'll never be able to understand the insane.

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:55:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Schumer may want to ban guns, but he's not what you have to worry
about. He's one vote in the Senate. On the other side is a
congressloon who wants to arm all of the janitors. Have you talked to
a school janitor lately? Help us Jesus....

So you are an elitist bigot. Thats hardly surprising. In my
experience...school janitors have the same mental ability as cops.


I'll bet that whiny Eddie has no clue that 115,000 janitors have
college degrees. The SOB thinks they are all certified morons who can't
be trusted with anything more than a broom or plunger. it's no wonder
he was never in the military. He would have shot himself in the foot to
get out, if his D.I. didn't shoot him in the head first.

Ed must be on Romney's payroll with statements like that. g

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:45:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

If we'd allow our cops to simply take out the murderers (Y'know, the
guys who still have the guns/knives in their hands at the murder
site), instead of carefully taking them into custody to stand trial,
the murders would quickly clear up. Zero Recidivism Starts Here.


They killed the ass who shot that school bus driver and kidnaped a
five year old in Alabama. No trial, no lawyers & no tax money wasted on
prison time. No book deals for the perp, and the kid is alive.

Excellent! When did that happen?

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:32:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:20:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
This thread was getting so long that it wouldn't download so I've cut
out much of it.


Who needs a zip gun, when criminals steal $122 million worth of
firearms each year? (FBI statistics).

You rather defeat the argument of gun records don't you. $122 million
dollars worth of stolen guns in the market place, outside the
registration system.

They're "outside" the registration system because there IS NO
registration system.

If there was, and if the original owners were legally responsbible to
control their guns (as in Switzerland, to repeat our example), you'd
have a lot fewer stolen guns.

As I remember your description the Swiss had to report the loss of a
gun immediately. So to follow their path, my gun is ripped off, I call
the cops immediately I get home from the store and discover it, give
them the serial number and description and everything. The gun has
still dissappeared into the depths of the criminal system.

But maybe we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. when
I was a young lad you could be pretty sure that there were guns/gun in
every farm house in the state and in a large percentage of the houses
in town too, yet (My uncle was a Deputy Sheriff) gun theft was an
almost infinitesimal part of any criminal activity that went on in the
state.


Hell, there's plenty of good stuff on the black market, thanks to a
vitually complete lack of accountability for gun owners to secrure
their guns.

Yes, rather.

Certainly you can record the sale of
every legally sold firearm but I would argue that there will be, as
long as it is financially viable, an underground gun market catering
to those who are engaged in an activity where they do not wish to have
an identifiable weapon.

It would be a hell of a lot smaller, over time, in all likelihood. If
you want to put a punch into those 200,000+ guns stolen each year,
make the owners responsible. It seems to work in some other countries.

Rather a strange attitude. Prosecute the victim.

It was only a matter of time before that came up. I expected it from
Gunner first. g

Well, that "victim" is the source of at least 20 guns in criminal
hands. What do you think about that, John? Is it hopeless? Are we
doomed to see 230,000 guns per year transferred from us lawful gun
owners to criminals, because no one holds us responsible for
controlling our guns?

If so, if you want to live in denial-land, where we're always
blameless and nothing can be done, the anti-gun crowd will push for
the only course we leave open to them, which is to ban guns.

We've brought it on ourselves. We aren't "victims." We're slobs who
feed the criminal market for guns. You and I may have 1/2" steel
safes, but you excuse people who have guns hanging on their walls, or
displayed in flimsy gun cases, or standing in the hall closet or
laying in a nightstand drawer. Because that's where guns used in
crimes come from. That, and private sales with no background checks,
and straw purchases that are low-risk for the straw buyers because we
have no registration or mandatory reporting of gun thefts, like the
24-hour limit they have in Switzerland.

We're strong on rights, and feeble on responsbility.




You may be perfectly responsible. But the next guy is not.


That is my point exactly. I'm responsible so you make me fill out all
kinds of forms and papers. The guy down the street takes his baseball
bat out for a walk and comes back with an unregistered pistol and two
loaded magazines.

Unfortunately, we can't write laws just for you -- unless you move to
a desert island, by yourself. d8-)

Certainly not. But how about writing laws to punish the evil doers.

Uh, John, we have thousands of those.

"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Oh, yeah. We're one of the few developed countries in the world with a
death sentence for murder, but we still have one of the highest murder
rates of any country where they bother to keep a count of them.

That's worked out really well, hasn't it? We already have heavy
sentences, John. Criminals don't care. They don't plan on getting
caught. Listen to the interviews with them. You can hear them late at
night on MSNBC.


How do you feel about having to take a driver's test, to pay for a
driver's license, and to fill out all that paperwork to buy and
license a car? Then they keep the registration records. I'll bet that
gets you steaming, eh?

And it doesn't seem to curtail auto deaths, does it?

Yeah, it probably does. Our rate (8.5 deaths/billion vehicle- km) is
in the same range as other developed countries with good licensing,
traffic laws, and enforcement.

We're right in there with western Europe on highway deaths and a small
fraction of those, say, in eastern Europe. We're a large multiple of
Europe's figure on gun-related crime. You figure it out.

Which is my
point, will that fu fur about guns actually do any good? Or is it just
another political football that will result in more complexity for the
honest man?

It would do good. Your automobile comparisons are the arguments used
by people who are grasping at straws, without thinking. A billion
vehicle-kilometers is one hell of a lot of miles spent hurtling around
in a two-ton piece of sheet metal at high speeds. I don't know how
you'd make a sensible comparison with guns, but anything you'd come up
with would have to compare gun deaths with cars that spend about 99.9%
of the time parked in a garage. The death rates with parked cars, like
the death rates with guns residing in a holster or in your gun case,
are awfully small. d8-)

The point isn't guns and cars. The point is deaths. Approximately
43,000 deaths are caused by automobiles every year while guns
(disregarding suicides) cause some 12,000 but there is this fevered
reaction to the 12,000 and a rather jaundiced reaction to another New
Jersey Turnpike crash with 50 dead and 100 injured.

Everyone points the finger and argues when I say that guns don't kill
people, people kill people, but cars don't kill people either. You
just never hear about a rogue auto roaring out of the garage on a
killing rampage, all on it lonesome.

No Ed, it is almost a religious sort of thing - guns kill (Believe!)
eliminating Guns will make this a perfect world (Believe!)

Just like we outlawed alcohol, prostitution, dope, gambling, pistols
(in N.Y.). and we also outlawed murder, thieving and rape, too.

Just one or two more laws and we will reach Nirvana.




Oh....that's about what's being proposed for guns, isn't it? d8-)


I get the head ache and he gets the gun.

To my personal knowledge my family has owned firearms since
the 1890's and very likely far longer...

Mine fought in Queen Anne's War, 1702. d8-)



...and not a one of us has ever
committed a crime (well other then shooting deer out of season :-)
with a firearm.

See above.



But worse, in my opinion, gun control or lack thereof appears to have
become nearly a religious issue. I hear people say that they are
afraid of guns, wouldn't have them in the house, and on and on, but it
really is a truism that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

People with guns are so much more effective, though. g That's what
the evidence and statistics tell us.

Of course they are more effective, after all they have been under
development for several hundred years, they ought to be pretty
effective.

Furthermore, they were invented for the purpose of killing people. All
of that development has only made them better.

It is very comforting to have a weapon upon which innumerable people
have spent so many years perfecting :-)

Witness the latest incarnations. Damned efficient, they are. You can
shoot up a whole classroom full of kids with one in a minute or two.
That's productivity!

Then you shoot yourself :-(

That's your option. It does seem to be a pattern, but the kids get it
in the head, first. And that's the problem.


But lets be honest, it wasn't the gun that did it, the gun was laying
on some pawn shop shelf for a year or more, never shot a soul.

Ah, if we're talking about Adam Lanza, it was in his mother's gun
cabinet.

It was
a twisted individual that did it and until you can somehow eradicate
these people there will probably always school killings.

A twisted individual with a gun.

The last
Japanese school killing was done with a kitchen knife.

How many did he kill? How many school kitchen-knife murders have
resulted in something like, say Columbine plus Virginia Tech plus
Newtown numbers of deaths?

Ed, you argue without merit. You seem to be saying that a limited
number of murders is rather meaningless. so where do we draw the line?

I'm saying fewer murders is better than more murders. Is that without
merit?

Kill one and "what the hell", Two and it is "My goodness". Three and
"what a shame".....

Twenty-six, and all hell breaks loose. We're reaping what we've sown.



I do agree that having an assault rifle makes it a little easier but
the lack there of is not going to stop them. After all Timmy McVeigh
didn't have a gun.

Adam Lanza et al. sure did.



But for sheer volume, nothing to date has equaled the good old
automobile. I just did a search on "Deaths due to Automobile
Accidents" and "killed by firearms every year". The numbers were
42,836 for Autos and 8,306 by firearms. That is some 500% going for
the Cars..... and they are registered and the drivers are all
certified competent.

Let me ask you some questions at a comparable level of mature
sensibility:

If you want to kill somebody in his third-floor apartment, which would
you choose, a gun or a car?

You are asking very slanted questions. In fairness I might well answer
that I'd wait until the guy starts off for work and sneak up behind
him with a ball bat.

I am asking STUPID questions, not slanted ones. They're equally stupid
as equating automobile accidents with intentional murders committed
with a gun.



If you want to go to church on Sunday, and it's five miles away, which
would you do: hop in your car and drive there, or grab your Glock and
start shooting?

Hardly a logical question. Effectively you seem to be justifying some
40,000 deaths a year because you are too lazy to walk to church. Given
the overwhelming propensity for blubber that seems to have permeated
the American public I would have to say that the walk, whether at
glock point or not, would be of great benefit to the worshipers.

One mo Why does "going postal" not refer to mowing people down with
a mail truck?

You'll have to either stop using that modern slang or provide an
explanation.

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

The reference refers to a date several years after I departed the U.S.

Where are you now? Is it gunners' nirvana?



These are not intended to merit serious responses, anymore than your
car/gun equivalency merits a serious response. You know the answer.
Rhetorical questions and statements conducted at something below the
maturity level of a high school freshman are not very effective.


As for kids (the latest firearm furor) there were, in the United
States, an average of 6 children 0-14 years old were killed and 694
injured every day in motor vehicle crashes during 2003. Given that
there have been something like 200 killed in school shootings in the
past 15 years it begins to look like a pretty small number when you
compare it to car "accidents".

See above. You know the answer. If not, talk to the parents and
friends of some of the kids killed in those school shootings.

You are evading the question of why there is little or no outcry about
kids getting killed in auto "accidents" and there is this great
demonstration of grief about school shootings.

That's right. I'm not evading it, I'm just expressing disbelief that
any mature adult would ask it.

Understanding the difference is essential to understanding what's
going on here.

Start with the fact that accidents are accidents. Then consider that

How many "automobile accidents" are actually accidents and not caused
by unsafe driving acts?

So you'd prefer to hold drivers responsible? I don't disagree. The
anguish of a parent whose kid was killed by a drunk driver (I know two
of them personally) is similar to that of a parent of a kid who was
killed by someone with a gun who shot indiscriminately. I suspect that
it's worse if they were shot *intentionally*. That must be utterly
devastating. I've been listening to the parents of those kids in
Newtown and they sound worse than shattered.

I also hold gun owners responsible for keeping their guns out of the
hands of criminals -- like they do in the countries whose gun laws so
many gun-rightists seem to admire.


As I have mentioned, years ago I was friends with a Maine State
Policemen. He told me that the police had gotten an act passed in the
legislature that allowed them to impound every car involved in a
death. they took the car to the police garage and stripped it down to
determine whether the "accident" was caused by mechanical failure.
they found that in nearly no cases was there a mechanical reason for
the "accident". Which leaves ?

Several things. For example, the time I hit two little girls, ages 8
and 10, near Montreal. They didn't die, but one suffered a broken leg.

They were riding a snowmobile (the 10-year-old was driving) and they
came out of a side street, hidden behind a snow bank, right into my
path. I had no time to react; they were riding fast and they didn't
look. That was an accident. Any negligence was on the part of their
parents.

I've been involved in three other accidents. Two of them were people
who turned left in front of me. They both claimed they didn't see me.
I have no reason not to believe them. Was that negligence on their
part? I don't think so. I think it was a brain fart on their part.

The third of those was a head-on that occurred when I hit a patch of
black ice and the limited-slip differentials on my 4WD Bronco locked
off, then on, throwing my car across the road out of my control. Was
that a mechanical failure? I don't think so. It was a primitive
limited-slip (1967) that reacted fiercely and uncontrollably -- bad
design, maybe. Was it negligence on my part? The court didn't think
so. They recognized that I was driving reasonably and responsibly.

So my own experience is that accidents are accidents. How many are
cases of negligence? Some, but none that I've been involved in --
except, again, for the parents of those little girls.


mass killings in schools are intentional -- and they're being done
lately with high-capacity semiautomatic firearms, which have become
the weapon of choice for getting your "Man Card Renewed."

Do you know what that phrase refers to? Did you see the Bushmaster
ads? If so, you should have some insight into the psychology of what's
been going on. You already know the mechanics of it. Then consider
that we're doing just about nothing about it. Finally, put yourself in
the place of a parent who's kid was killed intentionally, with a
weapon intended to spray bullets and that appeals mostly to people
with manhood insecurities, and you'll begin to get it.

I can't objectively answer as none of my children have died but I
doubt very much that my feelings would be very different whether
someone had gone into a classroom and killed the kid or whether they
had run them down with a car.

I think you're being unrealistic about that.


I really cannot believe that people would rationalize the death of a
child by saying, "Oh, I feel so much better about Johnny's death as he
was run down by a drunken driver and not shot in the schoolroom".

It's not rationalization. One is a case of an accident and seems to be
reconciled by most such parents with the risks of living --
eventually, although that does little to ease their grief. At least
they recognize what it is.

The other is an intentional murder performed with a gun designed for
killing lots of people. You'll ask why that nut had such a gun in his
hands. You may ask why anyone would have it except to live out his
fantasies about killing. In fact, several of the parents at Newtown
have been asking exactly that. I have no answer for them. I don't
think there is an answer. The person or persons who yelled "the second
Amendment" as an answer in that hearing only made the frustration and
anguish worse. It's not an answer. It's an excuse.


In short, I believe the argument is without substance.

And I believe you've gone all around the barn trying to avoid the
obvious.



Do you really think that the parents of a kid killed in a car crash
are any less sorrowful then the parents of a kid killed at school?

They're less anguished than if those kids were killed intentioanlly.
An accidental tragedy IS less difficult to accept than an intentional
killing of a first-grade kid.

Yes, Guy driving 10 - 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, jumping
lights and making a rolling stop at the corner stop sign and it is
referred to as an "accident" so that is o.k. Really, really, different
from a school shooting.

Me thinks that you've been brainwashed.

I don't think so. You, on the other hand, sound like you got your
ideas from the editorial columns of The American Rifleman. Your
argument is for maintaining the status quo, which produces a crazy and
irresponsible result.


No, I haven't read the American Rifleman since the early 1970's In
those days they had articles about ballistics, long range target
shooting, etc.

In another post there is a bit about manufacturing lower receiver
halves. I can't even begin to imagine why anyone would want a M-16 -
AR-whatever, with a 30 round magazine (painted black :-). Back when I
was gunsmithing I used to turn mauser actions into single shot rifles
:-)



"Brought up in a gun family"? I started hunting at age 11, with my
dad's 12-ga. Stevens double and my own .22 rimfire rifle. My mother
was a very good rifle shot, too.

And how many time has a gun in your household up and shot someone
across the room?

Changing the subject now, John? I thought the issue was that I wasn't
brought up in a gun family.

No, you added the bit about things flying across the room and killing
people. I merely commented on it.

I'll tell you something about my gun family: Every gun was assumed to
be loaded, all the time. Many of the kinds of gun accidents that occur
to "law abiding" gun owners would never have happened in our house.

I'm going to be leaving soon, so I'll try to get to the bottom line.
You support the status quo. Or maybe the status quo with more guns,
which will make even more guns available for theft by criminals. This
is what it all looks like:

1) You're supporting a system that puts 230,000 guns in the hands of
criminals each year, because:

Gee, you got it wrong right at the start. I don't support anything. I
cast doubt on whether a gun registration, data base, call it what you
want, is going to have any effect on gun crime.

You on the other hand appear to believe that passing another law
banning XXXX will cause a decrease in crime. I mention the Sullivan
law in New York and the Volstead Act and you immediately start to
rationalize reasons why THESE LAWS didn't work at the same time
assuming, or course, that your laws will be effective.

I go on to mention the anti-prostitution, anti-drug laws,
anti-gambling, even anti child spanking, laws all of which just don't
seem to work

But YOUR laws WILL work.......

You are correct it is time to leave. You with your (Mormon) Sanctified
underwear arguing that you are protected from sin and me saying "if
you pee in your paints do they still protect you?".

2) You consider people who fail to secure their guns to be "victims,"
rather than what they a irresponsible (usually) sources of guns
that enter the criminal black market through theft -- often blindingly
dumb and easy burglary.

3) Your resistance to background checks for private sales makes it
easy for even a convicted felon to buy a gun. All he has to do is lie.

4) You make the criminal activity of strawman purchasing relatively
easy and low-risk, because we have no universal gun background checks,
registration, and databases that would make it much more practical for
law officers to track down the strawman and nail him. Without
requirements for reporting thefts and background checks for private
sales (we have this in NJ; despite having crime-ridden cities like
Newark, Patterson and Camden, our murder rates are below the national
average and FAR lower than many states with lax gun laws), all a
strawman has to do is claim the gun was stolen.

5) Rather than adopt some of the simple, clear-headed laws that allow
countries like Switzerland and Israel to have widespread gun ownership
and low rates of gun crime, you wrap yourself in your "rights" and
ignore the fact that we impose very few responsibilities. Rather than
face them, you dodge and weave, comparing guns with cars and knives,
disregarding the fact that it is guns that are the basis of much of
our crime problem.

6) You argue that the death penalty for all gun crimes would help,
ignoring the fact that we have the death penalty in many states but we
also have the highest firearms-related rates of murder among the
developed, wealthy countries.

I didn't argue, I suggested more severe penalties for crimes using a
firearm. There is a difference.

Your entire argument is a denial-based case for maintaining the status
quo.

Your arguments are the root of the problem, John. You won't stop
criminality; we've always had it, even when we had death penalties for
a variety of crimes. There is no deterrent that has ever stopped
crime.

But the law-abiding are much more responsive to the deterrent of
penalties. It IS possible to go a long way toward keeping guns out of
criminals' hands, if we had a few sensible laws, like the ones I've
described, instead of the crazy quilt of over 10,000 mostly
ineffectual gun-control laws. Our gun laws are a fabric of
cheesecloth, enacted because politics won't allow us to write and
enforce laws that actually matter. We're all about rights, and to hell
with responsibilities. So we have what we deserve: outrageous crime
rates and a never-ending political battle over peripheral issues.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

John B. wrote in news:ii4ug89520098ipdia64nh4fucrsc62biv@
4ax.com:

But how about writing laws to punish the evil doers.
"Use of a firearm in a crime results in a mandatory death sentence",
that ought to cut down gun crime a bit.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. One unintended, but entirely predictable,
consequence of that proposal would be a dramatic increase in murders -- as street thugs
decide that since the penalties are the same for armed robbery and for murder, they might as
well ensure that there are no witnesses to their crimes.

I'm not sure that is a valid example.

The recent, much publicized video of the two kids trying to rob the
shop and the guy with the CC licence driving them off doesn't seem to
indicate that anyone was interested in witnesses.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:30:06 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Gunner wrote in
news:0kiug85lt4b3usuc2f34mfmjn0u030muo4@
4ax.com:

And how many vehicle deaths did we have last year? 42,000 +

Wrong as usual, Gummer -- the actual figure is slightly less than 36,000.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+vehicle+deaths+us+2012

Sorry..I was going by 2010 figures. And it is odd that such figures
are all over the place, depending on which source they are gotten
from.

"Overall, there were an estimated 247,421,120 registered passenger
vehicles in the United States according to a 2005 DOT study. "

"There is an estimated 325,000,000 firearms privately owned in the
US...yet in the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from
firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308;
Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Yet Eddy....there were far less deaths because of guns than vehicles
and it includes Suicide!

Twelve percent fewer is hardly "far less".

Indeed it is Far Less in actual numbers.

Dont like it? Tough.

He doesn't accept the real figure of 11k vs 42k,

Neither one of those is "the real figure".

There haven't been 42k deaths annually in motor vehicles in the US since 2007. And the
number of firearms deaths annually is a lot more than 11k.

Perhaps if you and Gummer would spend some time looking up actual statistics instead of
making s**t up, you would know what the numbers really are.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:40:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Failure to answer the question noted.

Without surprise.

What question? I thought you were making a joke about Gunner's failure
to secure his guns (there were nine, actually, in his statement; I see
that the 20 referred to another case). It looked like you were asking
tongue-in-cheek.

Odd....9? 20?

Care to provide citations to that? Or has your brain stem become
"aluminized" past the point of no return?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie