If you read of the old west and such - school teachers always protected
their students. They often kept a rifle in the corner of the room near
the desk / blackboard (if they were lucky) and used it to kill wolves
and cats that were praying on the children on recess. Many school
teachers lost their lives in the protection of their students.

Martin - former Teacher, College Professor.

snip

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

On 2/20/2013 9:51 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:29:52 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 9:16 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:10:48 -0600,
wrote:

To whom are you referring to as Governor Oops, sir?

This guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiu65reVQjI



mmm hmm... thought so.


I'll gladly keep Governor Perry.


You can _have_ Chris Christie.

No problem there.


You got that right.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Christie
verses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

Richard wrote:

wrote:

The quote was about gun owners. I have not checked but gun owners
generally understand what a semi automatic is. De you really think
that 54% of gun owners want to ban semi automatic firearms?

In New Jersey? Absolutely!



54% of the rest of the country wants to ban New Jersey.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:52:40 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 6:50 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:41:28 -0600,

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/


People's Press?

Ed, could that maybe possible be skewed just a little bit?

Go look at it, Richard. That's Pew Research, for which Gunner just
posted some right-wing stuff that praised Pew (he didn't realize it,
but he never reads his links, anyway.)


Because that's not what the Dallas News says at all.

And what does the Dallas News say?

Did you look at the Fox News poll that I quoted, and to which I posted
a link, or is Fox just too left-wing for you?


No, Ed, I'm afraid I didn't.

There were 21 scripts running on that page.

I temporarily enabled the top four, and still got nothing, but that's
about as far as I'll go.

And it IS People's Press, so WTF?

It's a hard core right wing rag in Colorado.
We already KNOW about their bias.
But damitalltohell, Ed, that's Colorado.
It's certainly not Texas - not by a country mile.

I just realized what you were saying here.

No, that's not the People's Press. It's the Pew Research Center for
the People & the Press.

It's a research organization, not a publisher.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/20/2013 11:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just realized what you were saying here.

No, that's not the People's Press. It's the Pew Research Center for
the People& the Press.

It's a research organization, not a publisher.


This is the one I thought you were talking about...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:04:54 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 11:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just realized what you were saying here.

No, that's not the People's Press. It's the Pew Research Center for
the People& the Press.

It's a research organization, not a publisher.


This is the one I thought you were talking about...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

It is. That's the Pew Research Center's site for their project on the
press. They have seven projects.

It has no relationship to the People's Press.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/20/2013 11:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:04:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 11:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just realized what you were saying here.

No, that's not the People's Press. It's the Pew Research Center for
the People& the Press.

It's a research organization, not a publisher.


This is the one I thought you were talking about...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

It is. That's the Pew Research Center's site for their project on the
press. They have seven projects.

It has no relationship to the People's Press.


So what the big pile of scripts?

Pass

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:22:47 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 11:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:04:54 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/20/2013 11:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just realized what you were saying here.

No, that's not the People's Press. It's the Pew Research Center for
the People& the Press.

It's a research organization, not a publisher.


This is the one I thought you were talking about...

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

It is. That's the Pew Research Center's site for their project on the
press. They have seven projects.

It has no relationship to the People's Press.


So what the big pile of scripts?

Pass

I have no idea what you mean. For me, it opens instantly and cleanly.
I have Java disabled, but otherwise, I'm running standard Win 7.

You could try the PDF of the report:

http://www.people-press.org/files/le...%20Release.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

You just shot a toe off, buddy.



The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted
January 9-13, 2013 among a national sample of 1,502 adults, 18 years of
age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia
(752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 750 were
interviewed on a cell phone, including 369 who had no landline
telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data
Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit
dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling
International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.
Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for
the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the
cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if
that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an
iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic
origin and nativity and region to parameters from the 2011 Census
Bureau's American Community Survey and population density to parameters
from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current
patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell
phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2012
National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also
accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell
phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined
sample and adjusts for household size among respondents with a landline
phone. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into
account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample
sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at
the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Group
Unweighted
sample size Plus or minus…
Total sample 1,502 2.9 percentage points
Form 1 727 4.2 percentage points
Form 2 775 4.1 percentage points
Men 725 4.2 percentage points
Women 777 4.1 percentage points
Republicans 403 5.7 percentage points
Democrats 473 5.2 percentage points
Independents 557 4.8 percentage points

Gun in household 529 5.0 percentage points

No gun in household 867 3.9 percentage points
Note that the individual gun policy questions on this survey (Q42) were
each asked only of about half of respondents (one form); as a result,
the margin of error for those questions is about double than for
questions asked of the entire sample. Sample sizes and sampling errors
for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question
wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce
error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

© Pew Research Center, 2013

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600, Richard
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?

--
Ed Huntress




The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted
January 9-13, 2013 among a national sample of 1,502 adults, 18 years of
age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia
(752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 750 were
interviewed on a cell phone, including 369 who had no landline
telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data
Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit
dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling
International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.
Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for
the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the
cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if
that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an
iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic
origin and nativity and region to parameters from the 2011 Census
Bureau's American Community Survey and population density to parameters
from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current
patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell
phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2012
National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also
accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell
phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined
sample and adjusts for household size among respondents with a landline
phone. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into
account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample
sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at
the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Group
Unweighted
sample size Plus or minus…
Total sample 1,502 2.9 percentage points
Form 1 727 4.2 percentage points
Form 2 775 4.1 percentage points
Men 725 4.2 percentage points
Women 777 4.1 percentage points
Republicans 403 5.7 percentage points
Democrats 473 5.2 percentage points
Independents 557 4.8 percentage points

Gun in household 529 5.0 percentage points

No gun in household 867 3.9 percentage points
Note that the individual gun policy questions on this survey (Q42) were
each asked only of about half of respondents (one form); as a result,
the margin of error for those questions is about double than for
questions asked of the entire sample. Sample sizes and sampling errors
for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question
wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce
error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

© Pew Research Center, 2013

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:20:06 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

You keep using that phrase but it does not mean what you think it means.
Is the right to have a car infringed by the registration and insurance
requirement?

Driving is not a Constitutionally listed right. Gun ownership is.
I don't think you quite grasp that concept.

You seem to be saying that any infringement of gun ownership violates the
second amendment. Well, I want a gun, but I don't have any cash on me---
shouldn't I get one for free? Of course not---I have to bear the cost.
Once you agree that gun ownership carries some responsibilities, we're
just haggling which details are included:

- purchase price
- responsibility for safekeeping (what Ed says)
- training and licensing
- insurance against damage to others

It's absurd that cooking for Boy Scouts requires a background check and
training, but there are no obligations for modern high-performance guns.

On 2/21/2013 12:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600,
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?



Yes, I do.

But 1500 people, do not speak for 300 million.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:39:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600,
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?



Yes, I do.

But 1500 people, do not speak for 300 million.

So how many do you think you'd need?

--
Ed Huntress

I'm guessing you will know what the liberals will reply?

(since you're a college professor, I'll do the spelling netpick

Pray: adress God in prayer.
Prey: Act hostile towards.

A missionary was wandering the African veldt when he encountered a lion.
There was nowhere to run so the man fell to his knees and said, "Lord,
please make this lion a Christian beast!" Surprisingly the lion also fell to
a crouch and bowed his head. "Lord, for this meal I am about to eat, let me
be truly thankful."

Didn't teach Collage Engrish, firstly yes, you?

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

"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message
...
If you read of the old west and such - school teachers always protected
their students. They often kept a rifle in the corner of the room near
the desk / blackboard (if they were lucky) and used it to kill wolves
and cats that were praying on the children on recess. Many school
teachers lost their lives in the protection of their students.

Martin - former Teacher, College Professor.

snip

Plenty of teachers are volunteering to carry concealed weapons. And
the cost of knife ownership, baseball bat ownership, steel pipe
ownership, and rock ownership is footed by all taxpayers. Why should
guns be any different? All can be used either as tools or weapons.
Why differentiate?

On Feb 20, 9:19*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:




I suggested that you read the methodology. Apparently you did not, or
you would have brought up something else: the "gun owners" could be
anyone in a household where there is a gun. That's what NRA frequently
counts in their "gun owners" figure, so there is some basis for it.
But that sounds like a Dan Caster invitation to contrarianism. d8-)

I did not read the methodology. If I cared a lot, I might do that,
but I do not. But without doing any research , the statement that 54%
of gun owners favor a ban on semi automatic firearms smells like
something is being cooked. Even legitimate polls can lie.

I do not understand your comment about contraranism. I was just
pointing out that one item in the poll seems wrong.


Dan



As with any polls, you have to read the methodology to understand what
you're looking at. What you're looking at with ANY recent polls,
though, is that public sentiment, even among gun owners, strongly
favors several measures, especially universal background checks and
national registration with a database. Strongly.

Larry's original "10%" figure of people who favor gun control, which
started this, is blindingly ignorant. No surprise.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:33:46 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 20, 9:19*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:




I suggested that you read the methodology. Apparently you did not, or
you would have brought up something else: the "gun owners" could be
anyone in a household where there is a gun. That's what NRA frequently
counts in their "gun owners" figure, so there is some basis for it.
But that sounds like a Dan Caster invitation to contrarianism. d8-)

I did not read the methodology. If I cared a lot, I might do that,
but I do not. But without doing any research , the statement that 54%
of gun owners favor a ban on semi automatic firearms smells like
something is being cooked. Even legitimate polls can lie.

This poll is not a "lie." Whether it accurately represents the
universe of gun owners, however, is a legitimate question. Determining
such things in the survey business is more art than science, and only
a careful, thorough reading of the methodology, including their sample
parameters and the wording of questions, will give you a clue about
how well they did.

One thing we know for sure, though, from the numerous gun-control
surveys that have been done over the past couple of months, is that an
enormous majority of gun owners favor universal background checks, on
private as well as commercial sales. There also is a smaller but
consistent support for registration. The issue of gun-type or magazine
bans is closer to 50 - 50, and varies a bit with the wording of the
question.


I do not understand your comment about contraranism. I was just
pointing out that one item in the poll seems wrong.

G! Dan, this is not a criticism, only a comment upon your style of
questioning. You are a natural contrarian, always looking for the most
minute possibilities that some statement is wrong, and blowing it up
to give it a false equivalence with greater likelihoods.

That's a useful function. There are companies that pay people to do
just that kind of thing. d8-)

I thought you would pick up the fact that the "gun owner" category was
actually people who live in a home in which there is at least one gun.
That isn't necessarily the "owner," but it's a useful category. The
NRA uses it all the time ("47% of households own a gun") to inflate
the impression of how many gun *owners* there are. The actual figures
I've seen, which are estimates, range from 21% to 27%.

As with all surveys, you have to look closely to know what they're
really telling you.

--
Ed Huntress




Dan



As with any polls, you have to read the methodology to understand what
you're looking at. What you're looking at with ANY recent polls,
though, is that public sentiment, even among gun owners, strongly
favors several measures, especially universal background checks and
national registration with a database. Strongly.

Larry's original "10%" figure of people who favor gun control, which
started this, is blindingly ignorant. No surprise.

--
Ed Huntress

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

A phone survey, for goodness sakes, Ed, of 1502 people.

First up, there is the national do-not-call list.
People who do not wish to be pestered by crank callers.
(and unsolicited phone surveys would rank high on my list)

"Important" people, CEOs, presidents, vices, office managers,
bosses, etc got excluded automatically.
No secretary who cherishes her job will let that through.

Next are the people who simply do not answer unknown callers.

Who is left in your demographics?

People so bored with TV that they are happy to be abstracted
for a few minutes by a robot caller. You know who we're talking
about here, Ed, not to cast aspersions, but - morons...

As the report said, these morons were taken to be indicative
of the national attitude. Iteratively weighted to include you and me.

I've not even questions the questions, phrasing or other distracters
that can be use to bias a survey.

I have no doubt that the most rigorous statical methods were used.

But the sample is too small and too biased to mean anything valid.

But cling to it if it makes you feel better.

On Feb 21, 8:46*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

I do not understand your comment about contraranism. *I was just
pointing out that one item in the poll seems wrong.

G! Dan, this is not a criticism, only a comment upon your style of
questioning. You are a natural contrarian, always looking for the most
minute possibilities that some statement is wrong, and blowing it up
to give it a false equivalence with greater likelihoods.

That's a useful function. There are companies that pay people to do
just that kind of thing. d8-)


Ed Huntress



I do not look for things that might be wrong, But there are a lot of
things that are " intuitively obvious to the most casual observer ".
And I do not blow things up. Just point out the things that look
wrong. Normally with no denigrating remarks. Certainly I have not
ever said that one incorrect item invalidates that entire discussion.

For example in this case, I just pointed out that one statement in
the poll seems odd.


Dan

On 2/20/2013 6:17 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/20/2013 5:11 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058




Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't remember
such statements.

In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals!


They should stick to what the definition of "is" is.

Wasn't that another famous liberal debate???


They are still debating it!

On 2/20/2013 6:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:07 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

No, I didn't say any such thing. What you repeated a few days ago is
that you had said they were going to be "rounded up." I don't recall
responding to that, but in any case, they haven't been "rounded up."


In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

A Fox News poll shows that 91% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying
at gun shows and private sales"

The same Fox poll shows that 80% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"

The same Fox poll shows that 56% of respondants favor laws "Banning
high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of bullets
without stopping to reload"

The same Fox poll shows that 54% favor laws "Banning assault rifles
and semi-automatic weapons"

52% of those Fox News poll respondants live in a household in which
guns are owned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

You'd better get out of this echo chamber and look around, bud. This
is serious business. Meanwhile, you, Gunner, Larry and the rest of the
gun nutz boyz are patting yourselves on the backs, as if you know that
everyone thinks like you do and that everything is just hunky-dory.

You're blowing smoke up each other's ass.


I don't believe those statistics. And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution. You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution. The founding fathers
will spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control.
What percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%,
I see why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average
in a murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws
will accomplish?

On 2/21/2013 6:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:39:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600,
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?



Yes, I do.

But 1500 people, do not speak for 300 million.

So how many do you think you'd need?


Nobody I know was asked!

On 2/21/2013 8:33 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

I don't believe those statistics. And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution. You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution. The founding fathers will
spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control. What
percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%, I see
why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average in a
murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws will
accomplish?

It will prevent honest law abiding people from being able to protect
themselves from violent criminals.

Not law will ever prevent evil people from breaking the law.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:20:06 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:28:47 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

You keep using that phrase but it does not mean what you think it means.
Is the right to have a car infringed by the registration and insurance
requirement?

Driving is not a Constitutionally listed right. Gun ownership is.
I don't think you quite grasp that concept.

You seem to be saying that any infringement of gun ownership violates the
second amendment. Well, I want a gun, but I don't have any cash on me---
shouldn't I get one for free? Of course not---I have to bear the cost.

Don't be ridiculous.


Once you agree that gun ownership carries some responsibilities, we're
just haggling which details are included:

- purchase price
- responsibility for safekeeping (what Ed says)
- training and licensing

Screw licensing. Training is a given, though. That's a big thing
with the NRA, too, if you haven't noticed. They harp on it often.
(Disclaimer: No, I'm not a member.)


- insurance against damage to others

If you damage something with your gun, the courts already impose fines
and/or jail time and require you to reimburse the victim for damages.
We don't need insurance, other than theft.


It's absurd that cooking for Boy Scouts requires a background check and
training, but there are no obligations for modern high-performance guns.

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.

--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

Tom Gardner wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!


How many brainwashed liberals do you talk with?

Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.



That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:33:44 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/20/2013 6:58 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:11:07 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/5/2013 1:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
I have a rather nice library of history books. Most of which indicate
you are senile.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1040422...96864834567058


Shrug

Gunner


Arguing with an anti-gun liberal is rather pointless, they will never
get it. Ed once told me I was crazy when I said that Christians will be
persecuted and mass murdered in the Middle East Later he didn't
remember such statements.

No, I didn't say any such thing. What you repeated a few days ago is
that you had said they were going to be "rounded up." I don't recall
responding to that, but in any case, they haven't been "rounded up."


In the same way he opposes the NRA and the 2nd "A". He just doesn't get
it. And, those of us that do get it are "NRA gun nuts". Funny, the
statistics for NRA members committing a gun related crime are
practically non-existent. Yet the NRA is the big bad guy in all this
****. What a bunch of stupid liberals! They should stick to what the
definition of "is" is.

Tom, all of that is bull****. Here's what you don't "get":

54% of gun owners in America want to ban semi-automatic firearms

60% of gun owners want a federal database to track gun sales

85% of gun owners want background checks for private sales and for all
sales at gun shows

49% of gun owners want a ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/...ority-support/

A Fox News poll shows that 91% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying
at gun shows and private sales"

The same Fox poll shows that 80% of respondants favor laws "Requiring
criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and ammunition"

The same Fox poll shows that 56% of respondants favor laws "Banning
high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of bullets
without stopping to reload"

The same Fox poll shows that 54% favor laws "Banning assault rifles
and semi-automatic weapons"

52% of those Fox News poll respondants live in a household in which
guns are owned.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

You'd better get out of this echo chamber and look around, bud. This
is serious business. Meanwhile, you, Gunner, Larry and the rest of the
gun nutz boyz are patting yourselves on the backs, as if you know that
everyone thinks like you do and that everything is just hunky-dory.

You're blowing smoke up each other's ass.


I don't believe those statistics.

shrug Voters won't care what you believe.


And, if it's a matter of polls and
votes, vote to change the constitution.

It's not a matter of polls. It is a matter of votes. And it has little
to do with the Constitution, which the Court has already dealt with.
The Court likely will have to deal with many more gun issues, but so
far, you're in no danger of seeing the Constitution violated.

This is just a guess, but I think that a ban on all semi-automatic
handguns would be declared unconstitutional. But that's about it, from
the lists of proposals I've seen.

You want to poll rights
away...do it legally, change the Constitution.

No "rights" are involved, so far. See D.C. v. Heller.


The founding fathers
will spin in their graves. It's not about guns. it's about control.

It's mostly about what kind of a civic culture we're going to have in
this country. You could call it a matter of different views on
civilization in general. That's where the political split lies.

What percentage of murders are committed with assault rifles? 0.0012%,
I see why their such a big target. How many shots are fired on average
in a murder? Less than two! Now, tell me what ALL the proposed laws
will accomplish?

Those are good points, and it's a good question. That's why I fought
the NJ bans on ARs in the early '90s, including lobbying for our NRA
affiliate.

But this is what has changed: A lot of people, probably most people,
based on the polls, dislike what ARs have done to our culture -- our
gun culture, in my view. "Renewing your man card," as Bushmaster calls
it, appeals to loons with manhood or other issues. And to the loony
militias. When someone wants a gun for slaughtering masses of people,
he grabs an AR or a Glock with a big magazine.

The horror of those slaughters has a depressing effect that goes 'way
beyond the numbers killed. But it's a reminder that something is sick
in our gun culture, and it provokes all of the other negative feelings
about our extraordinary gun-homicide rates.

So you have a cultural problem. It's a "right and wrong" issue.
Judgements of right and wrong are questions of morality. And, as
Robert Bork has said, all laws are legislation of morality.

So now you have a potential legal problem. And the polls are a little
scary.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:35:31 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/21/2013 6:41 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:39:58 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:42:46 -0600,
wrote:

Thanks you for that, Ed.

A phone survey of 1500 people...
And you think that means something?

It means a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error of +/- 3%
(that would be for a sample size of 1068; the accuracy is actually
slightly higher with 1500).

They've broken down the error margins and confidence levels for
individual questions at the end of what you quoted below. That's a
more accurate way to do it than just doing the confidence-interval
stats for the whole sample, as I did above. But they have more
incentive to get fancy than I do. d8-)

Are you with me?


You just shot a toe off, buddy.

Do you understand survey statistics?



Yes, I do.

But 1500 people, do not speak for 300 million.

So how many do you think you'd need?


Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:11:56 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:46*am, Ed Huntress wrote:

I do not understand your comment about contraranism. *I was just
pointing out that one item in the poll seems wrong.

G! Dan, this is not a criticism, only a comment upon your style of
questioning. You are a natural contrarian, always looking for the most
minute possibilities that some statement is wrong, and blowing it up
to give it a false equivalence with greater likelihoods.

That's a useful function. There are companies that pay people to do
just that kind of thing. d8-)


Ed Huntress



I do not look for things that might be wrong,

Uh, I think you're doing that now.

But there are a lot of
things that are " intuitively obvious to the most casual observer ".

But you're the one who always brings them up.

And I do not blow things up. Just point out the things that look
wrong. Normally with no denigrating remarks.

On that last point, I know. That's why we all find you endearing. d8-)

Certainly I have not
ever said that one incorrect item invalidates that entire discussion.

Well, you may not think so, but you do give that impression sometimes.


For example in this case, I just pointed out that one statement in
the poll seems odd.

Yes, that's correct. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to my
surprise that you didn't question something else, because I've come to
expect you to do so.

--
Ed Huntress



Dan

I'm spent considerable time listening to what you have to say.
Ok, yes, I found fault with some of it.
But I'm trying to hear you out.

Problem is, we are deeply emotionally divided over an issue that
is not really even a real issue.

Admit it - what you truly want is for CRIMINALS to not have guns.
Those are the people who do bad things with them.

But your argument, your whole intent in this rant, is to disarm
law abiding citizens, and make it illegal for them to defend themselves.

To that end, I would oppose all that you stand for.

We are as divided over this as warring tribes can be.
Much to our mutual loss.

Divided we fall.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:13:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.



That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

You were the source of meat? Any species we would recognize? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

Dan

I do not look for things that might be wrong,

Uh, I think you're doing that now.


That is an opinion. And it does not make it true regardless of how
many times you say it. Some people notice spelling mistakes, I notice
logic errors.



But there are a lot of
things that are " intuitively obvious to the most casual observer ".

But you're the one who always brings them up.


So what you are saying is that I should not comment on things that
seem wrong to me?


And I do not blow things up. *Just point out the things that look
wrong. *Normally with no denigrating remarks.

On that last point, I know. That's why we all find you endearing. d8-)

Certainly I have not
ever said that one incorrect item invalidates that entire discussion.

Well, you may not think so, but you do give that impression sometimes.

You infer things, but that does not make them true.


For example in this *case, I just pointed out that one statement in
the poll seems odd.

Yes, that's correct. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to my
surprise that you didn't question something else, because I've come to
expect you to do so.


Hmmm. Maybe you expect too much.

Dan

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:13:57 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I do not look for things that might be wrong,

Uh, I think you're doing that now.


That is an opinion. And it does not make it true regardless of how
many times you say it. Some people notice spelling mistakes, I notice
logic errors.



But there are a lot of
things that are " intuitively obvious to the most casual observer ".

But you're the one who always brings them up.


So what you are saying is that I should not comment on things that
seem wrong to me?

Jesus! Lighten up. I said it was useful, and that you're even
endearing. I said I didn't mean it in a critical way. What do you
want, a big smooch? Forgeddaboudit. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



And I do not blow things up. *Just point out the things that look
wrong. *Normally with no denigrating remarks.

On that last point, I know. That's why we all find you endearing. d8-)

Certainly I have not
ever said that one incorrect item invalidates that entire discussion.

Well, you may not think so, but you do give that impression sometimes.

You infer things, but that does not make them true.


For example in this *case, I just pointed out that one statement in
the poll seems odd.

Yes, that's correct. I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to my
surprise that you didn't question something else, because I've come to
expect you to do so.


Hmmm. Maybe you expect too much.

Dan

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:02:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

I know Iggy. I've never met any of the rest of you. God only knows who
you are.

Sometimes I imagine all of the gun nutz in drag, smoking hash in a
bong and shooting flies off the ceiling with their .44 Blackhawks. It
comforts me, and makes some sense of many of the remarks we hear on
this NG...

--
Ed Huntress


Dan

The nation has changed a lot since you and I were kids. Not for the better.

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.



That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:13:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.

That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

I didn't hunt, but Dad taught me to shoot on the AFB range in me yout.
Not well enough, because I put a round between our feet after shooting
his Colt Woodsman pistol the first time. I don't recall ever hearing
him say "Keep your finger -off- the trigger unless you are ready to
shoot." until then. blush It was a lesson well learned, as you can
imagine, and have kept my forefinger straight ever since.

I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in
school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It
would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an
early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in
a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school
should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.

--
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

Stormin Mormon wrote:

The nation has changed a lot since you and I were kids. Not for the better.


Later I learned to use & maintain multiple military weapons.

As always, Ed is interested in other men's meat. Go troll a gay bar,
you disgusting old queer. You said you would never be back, so it's no
surprise to see you trolling again. I have to add you to the troll
bucket on yet another replacement computer. You are #78 this time. You
were #2 on the last computer. Go find a new street corner to prostitute
yourself.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:13:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

That is, indeed, absurd, if it is correct. I would guess that since
guns were a part of life back when the Boy Scouts were formed, it was
something which was taken for granted that every single boy would know
how to properly handle a gun, as they did it at home every day. Kids
were the source of meat in homes back then, using their mighty .22s
until they bigger and could handle Dad's Winchester.

That is where I learned gun safety and how to shoot in the'60s, and
I've never shot anyone.

I didn't hunt, but Dad taught me to shoot on the AFB range in me yout.
Not well enough, because I put a round between our feet after shooting
his Colt Woodsman pistol the first time. I don't recall ever hearing
him say "Keep your finger -off- the trigger unless you are ready to
shoot." until then. blush It was a lesson well learned, as you can
imagine, and have kept my forefinger straight ever since.


There was no place close enough to go hunting when I was a kid. I
was working part time, and teaching myself electronics so I had little
free time and no way to get 10 to 15 miiles out to where I could hunt.

There was no need on the family's farm when we went to visit, and too
many chores to do. Why go hunting when the smokehouse is full, and no
room to put more can goods in Grammy's root cellar? We did spend some
time shooting a 22 pistol in a clay pit a half mile from the farmhouse
when we were there more than overnight. We would shoot till the box or
two of ammo was gone. The first shot became the target, since there was
no way to limb the curved wall.


I'd like to see weapons training given to every single student in
school, with walk-in classes for the home-schooled and infirm. It
would take the mystique off the tools and instill respect from an
early age. Both are necessary for optimal safety. Lessons learned in
a half-day class would likely be retained forever, but each school
should have them: elem/jr/high school. Boosters, as it were.


That along with a one semester course in car & truck saftey, and
emergency maintence.


"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

....Troll season is only one week this year...