In article , Han wrote:

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in urban
areas. period. I believe you all would agree.

Actually, I *don't* agree. Personally, I don't care if every violent felon in
America owns a dozen guns. What I care about is if they *use* them to commit
crimes. I don't care if they use them for target shooting. I don't care if
they use them for hunting. I don't care if they just collect them to look at.
If they aren't using them to commit crimes, they aren't doing you, or me, or
anyone else, any harm.

I think we need only one firearm law, really -- use a gun in the commission of
any crime, you get a mandatory ten years in a Federal penitentiary, over and
above the sentence for the underlying crime. No parole, no early release, no
time off for good behavior, no probation or suspended sentences, no nothing.
Ten years, period.

How to prevent this is
the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by dealers/distributors to
dubious characters should be punishable.

Who gets to define "dubious characters"? Sounds like you're proposing banning
the sale of a legal product on the basis of what the purchaser *might* do with
it in the future.

Bloomberg et al indeed try to
move the "culprit" label further up the supply chain, but then, there is
no evidence of gun manufacturers or distributors to help prevent the guns
from ending up in the wrong hands. Until gun
manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real honest efforts to prevent
guns from ending up in the wrong hands, I am in favor of trying to
prevent the initial gun sales.

What, pray tell, is the manufacturer supposed to do about it?

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real
honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the hands of drunken drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's that?

AND OF COURSE, real good penalties for
the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.

Attaching penalties to the purchase is pointless. Stiff penalties, rigorously
enforced, for their illegal misuse is the key. DAGS on "Project Exile".

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:51:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
Who gets to define "dubious characters"? Sounds like you're proposing banning
the sale of a legal product on the basis of what the purchaser *might* do with
it in the future.

Your current criminal code already decides much of it. It's already
being done as in people on parole and people who have committed
serious crimes in the past.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:51:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
Actually, I *don't* agree. Personally, I don't care if every violent felon in
America owns a dozen guns. What I care about is if they *use* them to commit
crimes. I don't care if they use them for target shooting. I don't care if
they use them for hunting. I don't care if they just collect them to look at.
If they aren't using them to commit crimes, they aren't doing you, or me, or
anyone else, any harm.

You don't care? You're either really stupid or really ignorant.
Probably both, as usual.

Any twit with half a brain except you realizes that in almost every
instance, violent felons obtain weapons for criminal intent. The
*only* benefit to the law abiding public with felons having firearms
is when they use them to kill each other off.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:51:17 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
Actually, I *don't* agree. Personally, I don't care if every violent felon in
America owns a dozen guns. What I care about is if they *use* them to commit
crimes. I don't care if they use them for target shooting. I don't care if
they use them for hunting. I don't care if they just collect them to look at.
If they aren't using them to commit crimes, they aren't doing you, or me, or
anyone else, any harm.

You don't care? You're either really stupid or really ignorant.
Probably both, as usual.

Apparently your knee jerked so hard when you read the first two sentences of
that paragraph that you missed all the rest of it.

Back up and read it again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

If you disagree with the last sentence, please provide a rational explanation
of why, rather than an ad hominem attack.

Any twit with half a brain except you realizes that in almost every
instance, violent felons obtain weapons for criminal intent.

So you would punish intent even in the absence of any direct action?

The
*only* benefit to the law abiding public with felons having firearms
is when they use them to kill each other off.

And the only harm to the law abiding public is when they use them to commit
crimes against us. It's not possession of guns that's the problem, it's misuse
of guns that's the problem.

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:31:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
If they aren't using them to commit crimes, they aren't doing you, or me, or
anyone else, any harm.

Back up and read it again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

I read the whole thing. What I'm telling you is that it's sheer
nonsense to suggest that violent felons would buy firearms and not use
them for illegal purposes. It just wouldn't happen and it's absolutely
ridiculous to suggest that it might. Are you that naive?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real
honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the hands of drunken
drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun dealers and
buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG national outcry.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

The
*only* benefit to the law abiding public with felons having firearms
is when they use them to kill each other off.

A friend of mine, at one time, lived in what used to be a nice little town.
It has for some years now been virtually taken over by Mexican drug gangs. A
short time before he moved, he said that he would sell guns by the pickup
load to the gangs if he could be sure that they would only shoot each other.

In article , Upscale wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:31:02 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
If they aren't using them to commit crimes, they aren't doing you, or me, or

anyone else, any harm.

Back up and read it again. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

I read the whole thing. What I'm telling you is that it's sheer
nonsense to suggest that violent felons would buy firearms and not use
them for illegal purposes. It just wouldn't happen and it's absolutely
ridiculous to suggest that it might. Are you that naive?

You continue to miss the point, which is that people -- whether criminals or
law-abiding -- *owning* guns is *not* the problem. People *misusing* guns is
the problem. Restricting ownership does nothing to resolve the problem of
misuse; those who are bent on criminal misuse will find a way to get them.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

Restricting ownership does nothing to resolve the problem of
misuse; those who are bent on criminal misuse will find a way to get
them.

Making it more difficult to acquire them should help, if only be making it
easier to prove that there was bad intent in the acquiring. At least he
can't say it was laying around, so I picked it up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article , Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

Restricting ownership does nothing to resolve the problem of
misuse; those who are bent on criminal misuse will find a way to get
them.

Making it more difficult to acquire them should help, if only be making it
easier to prove that there was bad intent in the acquiring.

How will that help? Remember that a criminal is, by definition, a person who
doesn't obey laws. So how will laws making it more difficult to acquire
firearms affect the criminals?

At least he can't say it was laying around, so I picked it up.

Very, very few guns are acquired in that manner....

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers make real
honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the hands of drunken
drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun dealers and
buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG national outcry.

Just be thankful that los idiotas (gun control freaks) number under
10% of our population.

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now. But we
aren't, are we?

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers
make real honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the
hands of drunken drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's
that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun
dealers and buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG
national outcry.

Just be thankful that los idiotas (gun control freaks) number under
10% of our population.

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now. But we
aren't, are we?

that would depend upon your definition of 'dead'. i know some people who are
still walking around but fit my definition of it.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now.

I can see it now, shooting a pistol with one hand and texting with the
other.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:06:59 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers
make real honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the
hands of drunken drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's
that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun
dealers and buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG
national outcry.

Just be thankful that los idiotas (gun control freaks) number under
10% of our population.

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now. But we
aren't, are we?

that would depend upon your definition of 'dead'. i know some people who are
still walking around but fit my definition of it.

From owning guns?!? Where's the context, Charlie?


--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:49:07 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now.

I can see it now, shooting a pistol with one hand and texting with the
other.

Nah, the front sight would tend to mess up the screen in a hurry.

--
Imagination is the beginning of creation. You imagine what you desire,
you will what you imagine and at last you create what you will.
-- George Bernard Shaw

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:06:59 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers
make real honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the
hands of drunken drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's
that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun
dealers and buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG
national outcry.

Just be thankful that los idiotas (gun control freaks) number under
10% of our population.

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now. But we
aren't, are we?

that would depend upon your definition of 'dead'. i know some people
who are still walking around but fit my definition of it.

From owning guns?!? Where's the context, Charlie?

no. some people walk around dead from the neck up as a matter of course.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:13:23 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:06:59 -0700, the infamous "chaniarts"
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:31:26 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Parallel argument: Until car manufacturers/distributors/dealers
make real honest efforts to prevent cars from ending up in the
hands of drunken drivers,
I am in favor of trying to prevent the initial car sales. How's
that?

If you made car dealers and buyers jump through the hoops gun
dealers and buyers have to jump through, there would be a BIG
national outcry.

Just be thankful that los idiotas (gun control freaks) number under
10% of our population.

If gun owners were even ten percent as negligent as drivers are in
this country, half the population would be dead by now. But we
aren't, are we?

that would depend upon your definition of 'dead'. i know some people
who are still walking around but fit my definition of it.

From owning guns?!? Where's the context, Charlie?

no. some people walk around dead from the neck up as a matter of course.

That's what I thought, but I wanted you to actually say it.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust