Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in urban
areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent this is
the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by dealers/distributors to
dubious characters should be punishable. 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. AND OF COURSE, real good penalties for
the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing to
fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with gangs
today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

--

-Mike-

Two parties
 

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent
this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
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. AND OF COURSE,
real good penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them
illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it
has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither you
nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well known this
is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold result in Joe
selling the merchandise to criminals, then some liability should rest
with that company. In other words, if I am selling "stuff" that is
easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then I
should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible people.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent
this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
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. AND OF COURSE, real good
penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems
it has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither
you nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well
known this is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold
result in Joe selling the merchandise to criminals, then some
liability should rest with that company. In other words, if I am
selling "stuff" that is easily used in a manner with deadly results
to innocent people, then I should make reasonably sure that my
customers are responsible people.

so you're proposing mind reading?

are you also proposing that a car dealership not sell cars to bank robbers
as that is the most likely way they get away? are they also supposed to be
mind readers?

Two parties
 

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing to
fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with gangs
today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

A small correction: there *was* a period in the early 20th century when there
was a significant problem with gang violence -- directly related to the
illegal drug trade, then, just as now. The only difference is that the drug
then was alcohol, vs. cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana now. When the
possession, sale, use, etc. of alcohol was decriminalized and regulated, the
gun violence associated with the illegal trade in it nearly vanished.

Coincidence, no doubt, and of no bearing on the present situation...

Two parties
 

In article , Han wrote:

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither you
nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well known this
is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold result in Joe
selling the merchandise to criminals, then some liability should rest
with that company. In other words, if I am selling "stuff" that is
easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then I
should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible people.

And that is exactly what happens when firearm manufacturers sell their
products: they sell to Federally licensed firearm dealers. If the Federal
government issues licenses to, or fails to revoke the licenses of, dealers who
shouldn't have them, it's not rational to blame the manufacturer for that.

Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...
if I am selling "stuff" that is
easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then I
should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible people.

--
And they do. It is very obvious by what you are saying that you have no
idea. I would suggest you look up the laws. If a manufacturer sell guns to
someone other than a federally licensed dealer (look up what it takes to
get, and maintain, a dealers license), they are guilty of a felony. If that
dealer sells a gun to an unauthorized person, he is guilty of a felony. If
that unauthorized person is cought with that gun, he is guilty of a felony.

Two parties
 

CW wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
...
if I am selling "stuff" that is
easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then
I should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible
people.

--
And they do. It is very obvious by what you are saying that you have
no idea. I would suggest you look up the laws. If a manufacturer sell
guns to someone other than a federally licensed dealer (look up what
it takes to get, and maintain, a dealers license), they are guilty
of a felony. If that dealer sells a gun to an unauthorized person, he
is guilty of a felony. If that unauthorized person is cought with
that gun, he is guilty of a felony.

And BATF has people whose job it is to go around trying to trick dealers
into violating some minute detail of the law.

Two parties
 

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing
to
fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with gangs
today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

A small correction: there *was* a period in the early 20th century when
there was a significant problem with gang violence -- directly related to
the illegal drug trade, then, just as now. The only difference is that the
drug then was alcohol, vs. cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana now.
When the possession, sale, use, etc. of alcohol was decriminalized and
regulated, the gun violence associated with the illegal trade in it nearly
vanished.

Coincidence, no doubt, and of no bearing on the present situation...

Interesting other, again merely coincidental item. The confiscatory taxes
on tobacco are giving rise to smuggling between jurisdictions with low taxes
to those with very high taxes. Right now (as in the beginning of the time
period you mention), this is just small-time criminals. As the taxes get
higher and the rewards for skirting the laws get bigger, look for more gang
involvement and similar issues with this "legal but heavily taxed" product.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Two parties
 

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do nothing
to
fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it has with
gangs
today, throughout its history. What things were different then? What
really needs to change? Looking for easy ways out of hard problems by
trying to push them on the shoulders of unrelated parties will do one
thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

A small correction: there *was* a period in the early 20th century when
there was a significant problem with gang violence -- directly related to
the illegal drug trade, then, just as now. The only difference is that
the
drug then was alcohol, vs. cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana now.
When the possession, sale, use, etc. of alcohol was decriminalized and
regulated, the gun violence associated with the illegal trade in it
nearly
vanished.

Coincidence, no doubt, and of no bearing on the present situation...

Interesting other, again merely coincidental item. The confiscatory
taxes
on tobacco are giving rise to smuggling between jurisdictions with low
taxes
to those with very high taxes. Right now (as in the beginning of the time
period you mention), this is just small-time criminals. As the taxes get
higher and the rewards for skirting the laws get bigger, look for more
gang
involvement and similar issues with this "legal but heavily taxed"
product.


I've seen that coming for some time.

Two parties
 

chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to
prevent this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
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. AND OF COURSE, real good
penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems
it has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the
problem.

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither
you nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well
known this is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold
result in Joe selling the merchandise to criminals, then some
liability should rest with that company. In other words, if I am
selling "stuff" that is easily used in a manner with deadly results
to innocent people, then I should make reasonably sure that my
customers are responsible people.

so you're proposing mind reading?

are you also proposing that a car dealership not sell cars to bank
robbers as that is the most likely way they get away? are they also
supposed to be mind readers?

then again, if you ban guns, knives, crossbows, etc, you'd eventually get
down to bar glasses

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/cus...719147.stor y

Two parties
 

On 02 Feb 2010 20:20:54 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to prevent
this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
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. AND OF COURSE,
real good penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them
illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems it
has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the problem.

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither you
nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well known this
is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold result in Joe
selling the merchandise to criminals, then some liability should rest
with that company. In other words, if I am selling "stuff" that is
easily used in a manner with deadly results to innocent people, then I
should make reasonably sure that my customers are responsible people.

Oh, come on, Han. If "it was well known", the cops would have legal
right to arrest Joe Shmoe, -not- the company who sold goods to him. A
good company generally won't knowingly sell goods to criminals, but
there is absolutely nothing illegal in their doing so. Immoral, yes.

Are you really advocating lawsuits against GM for bad drivers of their
cars, or drivers who use them in holdups?

Are you actually advocating lawsuits against bat makers because
someone uses one to attack a person instead of hitting a ball with it?

If so, please buy a clue, soonest!

--
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

Two parties
 

Larry Jaques wrote in
:




Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:




Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?


If they were selling to a dealer who didn't have a valid FFL (Federal
Fireamrs License) then yes.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...
Larry Jaques wrote in
:




Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?


Look up "aiding and abetting".

Two parties
 

On Feb 5, 1:01*pm, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote :



Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?

Gee, I haven't noticed anyone here advocating illegal activities.
Just throwing another one of your strawmen onto the fire, eh?

Two parties
 

wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 1:01 pm, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote
:



Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?

Gee, I haven't noticed anyone here advocating illegal activities.
Just throwing another one of your strawmen onto the fire, eh?

To be fair, I don't think that was his intention. Seems he just doesn't know
the law.

Two parties
 

On Feb 5, 2:39*pm, "CW" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 5, 1:01 pm, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote
:

Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?
Gee, I haven't noticed anyone here advocating illegal activities.
Just throwing another one of your strawmen onto the fire, eh?

To be fair, I don't think that was his intention. Seems he just doesn't know
the law.

His accusation of "ducking the rules against reselling" sounds like an
illegal activity to me.

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:




Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling
its products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling,
would you be for or against punishing the company?

If that's the extent of the original seller's involvement, then of course
the original company should not be punished.

If, on the other hand, there's an agreement or conspiracy between the two,
then punishment is warranted.

Two parties
 

chaniarts wrote:

chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Guns should not be in the hands of irresponsible/criminal people in
urban areas. period. I believe you all would agree. How to
prevent this is the problem. In my honest opinion, sales by
dealers/distributors to dubious characters should be punishable.
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. AND OF COURSE, real good
penalties for the miscreants who buy and use them illegally.


Assigning the blame on those not responsible will continue to do
nothing to fix the problem. This country did not have the problems
it has with gangs today, throughout its history. What things were
different then? What really needs to change? Looking for easy ways
out of hard problems by trying to push them on the shoulders of
unrelated parties will do one thing - it will perpetuate the
problem.

In our country product liability is taken to an extreme that neither
you nor I condone. However, if a company knows (since it is well
known this is so) that sales to Joe Shmoe in East Overshoes wold
result in Joe selling the merchandise to criminals, then some
liability should rest with that company. In other words, if I am
selling "stuff" that is easily used in a manner with deadly results
to innocent people, then I should make reasonably sure that my
customers are responsible people.

so you're proposing mind reading?

are you also proposing that a car dealership not sell cars to bank
robbers as that is the most likely way they get away? are they also
supposed to be mind readers?

then again, if you ban guns, knives, crossbows, etc, you'd eventually get
down to bar glasses


http://content.usatoday.net/dist/cus...719147.stor y

Oh good grief. Just when you think things can't get much more silly,
somebody has to go out and prove you wrong. This is the country that use to
rule the "boundless waves" and had an empire upon which the sun never set?
Wha' happened?






--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...


Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?


Hey Han - your assumption is really flawed. What do you mean by "ducking
the rules..."? That can have a lot of meanings. Not all of them are big
concerns. Some could be very big concerns. The problem is you don't define
it well enough for a good answer. What do you mean by punishing the
company? For all I know, you could be suggesting that firearms
manufacturers should be held liable for some dealer not using the right
color ink on his forms, and being subject to lawsuits for people feeling
uncomfortable with the whole idea of guns.

You've asked a very open question that frankly, kinda seems like a setup...

--

-Mike-

Two parties
 

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:13:32 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?

You've asked a very open question that frankly, kinda seems like a setup...

You've got to be kidding? Are you that simple minded that you don't
understand he was talking about a company or someone that was breaking
the laws outright?

Fine, he could have worded "ducking the rules" more strongly, but even
a simpleton would understand what he was trying to say. Instead, you
prefer to go the Doug Miller route and try to be cleaver while in
reality you're just playing dumb.

Two parties
 

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:13:32 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling
its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would
you
be for or against punishing the company?

You've asked a very open question that frankly, kinda seems like a
setup...

You've got to be kidding? Are you that simple minded that you don't
understand he was talking about a company or someone that was breaking
the laws outright?

Fine, he could have worded "ducking the rules" more strongly, but even
a simpleton would understand what he was trying to say. Instead, you
prefer to go the Doug Miller route and try to be cleaver while in
reality you're just playing dumb.

Not at all. Who in their right mind would say "sure, let a manufacturer
sell what they want to people they know are illegally passing guns along to
known criminals without any recourse"? But then again, as has been
established, that's not how the supply chain works in firearms. Han's
question therefore, begs further explanation. I'm trusting that he was
building a point with his question, but that point would have to begin with
something more substantial than just assuming a manufacturer is doing some
undefined thing. If for example it was proven that a manufacturer was
knowingly supplying an FFL that was a wide open pipeline to the street
gangs, my answer would be one thing. If however, it was proven that a
manufacturer was supplying an FFL that had been found to be in violation of
some nit detail of the regulations - even knowingly, then my answer might be
quite the opposite. It would all depend on what the circumstances are that
Han is assuming in his question. There is the line of reasoning among
people that guilty in the small things, guilty in the big things, and since
that is not universally true, I didn't want to get going down that path with
Han, if that's where he was headed.

--

-Mike-

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:




Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling
its products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling,
would you be for or against punishing the company?

If one _knows_ that someone is violating the law then one's duty is to call
the cops. But it is not the duty of a manufacturer of anything to conduct
their own investigation to determine whether someone holding a government
license is in fact lawfully entitled to hold that license.

You are aware, are you not, that refusing service to a customer for reasons
other than that he can't pay or that he does not possess a necessary license
is a discriminatory act and in restraint of trade in the United States and
both such are subject to a variety of legal sanctions. You can't just say
"Hey, Mr. possessor of a government license to purchase this product, you
look like a criminal to me so I won't sell it to you". If you do that then
you're going to be buried in the resulting lawsuit.

Two parties
 

On 05 Feb 2010 19:01:23 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Larry, assume we can prove that some company knew that it was selling its
products to people who were ducking the rules against reselling, would you
be for or against punishing the company?

Until it's considered illegal, against. I likely wouldn't do business
with them after hearing that, though, if you consider that punishment.

--
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

Two parties
 

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:42ebb$4b6d5ff9
:

It would all depend on what the circumstances are

That is a great supposition, and the lawyers are having a field day with
that.

This got to be too long a sentence, but so what.
My real question is, if NY City officials (as an example) can trace guns
that are used illegally in the city to a supply line that illegally runs
guns up I95 from southern states where there is a flourishing trade in
firearms (I think they mean gun shows or so which may or may not be
subject to all firearms regulations), and where it can be established
that gun manufacturers supply said dealers, then what is the due
diligence duty of the manufacturers, the dealers and the gun show
sellers?

As you have gathered, I don't own a firearm, and haven't fired anything
other than an air something at a Dutch "kermis" in the early 60's. I
don't feel a need at all to own a firearm where I live now (North
Jersey). I do feel that almost every lawabiding, sane person has the
right to own firearms to be used for sport or in case of proven need of
selfdefense. That excludes Uzi's and other stuff of similar ilk, other
than in an organized and sanctioned militia or sportsclub, where such
powerful weapons probably should be stored under good lock and key.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:42ebb$4b6d5ff9 :

It would all depend on what the circumstances are

That is a great supposition, and the lawyers are having a field day
with that.

This got to be too long a sentence, but so what.
My real question is, if NY City officials (as an example) can trace
guns that are used illegally in the city to a supply line that
illegally runs guns up I95 from southern states where there is a
flourishing trade in firearms (I think they mean gun shows or so
which may or may not be subject to all firearms regulations), and
where it can be established that gun manufacturers supply said
dealers, then what is the due diligence duty of the manufacturers,
the dealers and the gun show sellers?

Uh, what is wrong with the Federal government that the Federal government
does not pull those dealers' licenses? Why should it be up to the firearms
manufacturers to investigate such matters?

But you simply keep ignoring this question. Why is that? Does it upset you
so much that the government isn't doing its job?

As you have gathered, I don't own a firearm, and haven't fired
anything other than an air something at a Dutch "kermis" in the early
60's. I don't feel a need at all to own a firearm where I live now
(North Jersey). I do feel that almost every lawabiding, sane person
has the right to own firearms to be used for sport or in case of
proven need of selfdefense. That excludes Uzi's and other stuff of
similar ilk, other than in an organized and sanctioned militia or
sportsclub, where such powerful weapons probably should be stored
under good lock and key.

Why is it that you're so focussed on "Uzis" and other weapons that have
practically no presence in the homicide statistics?

Two parties
 

On Feb 6, 12:04*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Why is it that you're so focussed on "Uzis" and other weapons that have
practically no presence in the homicide statistics?

Don't feed the troll.

Two parties
 

Han wrote:

I hope you'll permit a few corrections.

My real question is, if NY City officials (as an example) can trace
guns that are used illegally in the city to a supply line that
illegally runs guns up I95 from southern states where there is a
flourishing trade in firearms (I think they mean gun shows or so
which may or may not be subject to all firearms regulations), and
where it can be established that gun manufacturers supply said
dealers, then what is the due diligence duty of the manufacturers,
the dealers and the gun show sellers?

TRACE
Here's the way a trace works.
1. Officials submit a serial number to the manufacturer.
2. Manufacturer tells the officials when and to what wholesaler the gun was
sold.
3. Inquiring of the wholesaler, one can find the retailer.
4. Assuming the retailer is still in business, a manual search of the
records will reveal the original purchaser.
5. Of course the original purchaser has moved eight times since the gun was
bought in 1976 and he eventually died in 1995.
6. Heirs of the deceased original owner think that maybe cousin Bob got the
gun, but can't be sure.
7. Cousin Bob, who now lives in Malaysia, asserts he has no knowledge of the
gun.

Tracing a gun is a solution is search of a problem. Ninety percent of guns
recovered at a crime scene are easy. They either belong to one of the actors
on the scene or were reported stolen.

GUN SHOWS
Gun shows ARE subject to ALL firearm regulations. If you visit a gun show,
you'll see people wandering around with firearms sporting a "for sale or
trade" sign. Then there are individuals who want to dispose of their
collection and find the easiest way is to rent a table at the show for $50.
Sales from either of these types of folks are "private" sales, no different
in character from me selling a gun to you.

DUE DILIGENCE
Gun manufacturers get an order from a gun store 2,000 miles away accompanied
by a copy of the store's Federal Firearms License. What sort of "due
diligence" can they perform?

Gun show sellers (dealers) hold Federal Firearm Licenses and must vet all
potential buyers through the FBI's NICS computer.

NEW YORK'S PROBLEM
Now I agree that NY has a problem with guns being illegally run up I95. The
fix, in my view, is to let people easily buy their guns in New York. That
would put an end to the illegal traffic.



As you have gathered, I don't own a firearm, and haven't fired
anything other than an air something at a Dutch "kermis" in the early
60's. I don't feel a need at all to own a firearm where I live now
(North Jersey). I do feel that almost every lawabiding, sane person
has the right to own firearms to be used for sport or in case of
proven need of selfdefense. That excludes Uzi's and other stuff of
similar ilk, other than in an organized and sanctioned militia or
sportsclub, where such powerful weapons probably should be stored
under good lock and key.

UZIS, MILITIA, AND USES
An Uzi is no more powerful than a pistol. They use exactly the same
ammunition (9mm or .45) and an Uzi cannot fire faster than a pistol. In sum,
there is NO practical, physical, or logistical difference between an Uzi and
any 9mm handgun. I know, because I've GOT an Uzi. And before anybody starts
going nuts, I have a couple of 30-round magazines for my Glock!

Give up on the militia business. The Supreme Court held two years ago that
the opening clause in the 2nd Amendment was dross and was to be ignored in
its entirety.

"Need" is NOT the operative word regarding the possession of guns. The word
that's applicable is "WANT."

Guns are acquired for many reasons, not just for sport or self defense. Some
others include:

* Historical artifact (the dueling pistols used by Hamilton & Burr, Sadaam
Hussein's Glock, etc.)
* Investment
* Collecting

One of my customers was aghast that a local in her town was busted for
having 2,000 guns! (flintlocks, blunderbusses, etc.) "Nobody NEEDS 2,000
guns!" she exclaimed.

"I agree, Carol. A stamp collector, for example, should be content with one
red stamp, one blue stamp, a big stamp, and a little stamp."

"IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!" she screeched. "It's EXACTLY the same thing," I
countered.

Two parties
 

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:42ebb$4b6d5ff9
:



This got to be too long a sentence, but so what.
My real question is, if NY City officials (as an example) can trace guns
that are used illegally in the city to a supply line that illegally runs
guns up I95 from southern states where there is a flourishing trade in
firearms (I think they mean gun shows or so which may or may not be
subject to all firearms regulations), and where it can be established
that gun manufacturers supply said dealers, then what is the due
diligence duty of the manufacturers, the dealers and the gun show
sellers?

Thanks Han - your elaboration has provided much needed clarity and is quite
different from the black and white that Upscale would like to portray your
initial question to have been. As you have elaborated here, it becomes a
more difficult question to answer than what your initial question asked.
Your initial question presumed that the manufacturer was completely aware of
this illegal supply chain. This explanation, or elaboration makes the
scenario look much different. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer to only
become aware of illegal supply chain activities after law enforcement has
suspected something. Even more so - after they feel they have enough
evidence to convict, since they don't want to tip their hand while
investigations are underway. So... for a very long time, a manufacturer is
entirely likely to be completely unaware of the illegal nature of a
distributor's actions. Can they be held accountable for that? Hell no.



As you have gathered, I don't own a firearm, and haven't fired anything
other than an air something at a Dutch "kermis" in the early 60's. I
don't feel a need at all to own a firearm where I live now (North
Jersey). I do feel that almost every lawabiding, sane person has the
right to own firearms to be used for sport or in case of proven need of
selfdefense. That excludes Uzi's and other stuff of similar ilk, other
than in an organized and sanctioned militia or sportsclub, where such
powerful weapons probably should be stored under good lock and key.


My first question of your above statement is what do you consider to be a
"powerful weapon"? As an admited uninformed observer, I might ask you two
questions... What is "stored under good lock and key", in your opinion, and
why do you feel comfortable with an opinion on a matter that you really are
not at all knowledgeable in? The latter question is not intended to insult.
It's intended to be a thought provoke. Opinions are good and challenges to
opinions are good, but the basis for opinions does need to be examined.


--

-Mike-

Two parties
 

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Would tend to agree with that. Han's comments regarding Uzi's and
other "powerful" weapons reflects the views of someone exposed to the
anti-gun rhetoric of the main stream media who attempt to equate
Uzi's, AR's, and other legally available semi-automatic weapons with
fully automatic rifles. In actuality, this is simply the anti-gun
crowd's attempt to ban what is in their view, scary looking guns.
The reality is that these are no different than semi-automatic
sporting rifles in terms of capability.

Well, the Uzis ARE different from sporting rifles. Uzis only come in two
calibers: 9mm and .45 ACP.

These calibers are seldom used for sport.

You can tell the difference by consulting the handy-dandy journalist's guide
to AK-47s he

http://www.fmft.net/journalists%20gu...0AK%204 7.jpg

Two parties
 

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:d9b72$4b6e4eb0
:

snipped

My intention was to not formulate a banket ban on firearms, but to express
my fears of firearms getting to people who should not be allowed to use
them. I have no problem with an experienced, trained person having
firearms, if he takes care they cannot be easily taken from him in (for
instance) a robbery. Hence my phrase good lock and key.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:04:00 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:42ebb$4b6d5ff9 :

It would all depend on what the circumstances are

That is a great supposition, and the lawyers are having a field day
with that.

This got to be too long a sentence, but so what.
My real question is, if NY City officials (as an example) can trace
guns that are used illegally in the city to a supply line that
illegally runs guns up I95 from southern states where there is a
flourishing trade in firearms (I think they mean gun shows or so
which may or may not be subject to all firearms regulations), and
where it can be established that gun manufacturers supply said
dealers, then what is the due diligence duty of the manufacturers,
the dealers and the gun show sellers?

Uh, what is wrong with the Federal government that the Federal government
does not pull those dealers' licenses? Why should it be up to the firearms
manufacturers to investigate such matters?

Did you miss his "if" in the question? Manufacturers, gun shows, and
gun shops all require the proper paperwork and ID. They can't sell to
anyone without them or they'll be shut down and jailed. Han is talking
ifs, where some NYC "official" thinks he knows something but can't
prove it and he gives a speech about it.


But you simply keep ignoring this question. Why is that? Does it upset you
so much that the government isn't doing its job?

See above. It needs proof to press charges and shut someone down. It
could also be that out of the 4,321 (WAG) guns seized last year, 3
were traced to Bama or NC and the "official" doing the story needed a
scapegoat, so "the southern states" became "it" for his purposes.
That would be my guess. Of course, those traced guns would surely turn
out to be from burglaries, which means that nobody down south was
selling massive quantities of arms to their northern buddies. There
goes your conspiracy theory, libs. g


As you have gathered, I don't own a firearm, and haven't fired
anything other than an air something at a Dutch "kermis" in the early
60's. I don't feel a need at all to own a firearm where I live now
(North Jersey). I do feel that almost every lawabiding, sane person
has the right to own firearms to be used for sport or in case of
proven need of selfdefense. That excludes Uzi's and other stuff of
similar ilk, other than in an organized and sanctioned militia or
sportsclub, where such powerful weapons probably should be stored
under good lock and key.

Why is it that you're so focussed on "Uzis" and other weapons that have
practically no presence in the homicide statistics?

Most liberal gun grabbers are told to say that. It's in the script. ;)
I thought Han was open minded until I read further text, especially
this one you replied to. He exposed himself. tsk, tsk

Back to wooddorking: Don't build pineywood gun safes with glass
display windows in 'em. The axe or hammer keys can get right into
them.

--
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

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:d9b72$4b6e4eb0 :

snipped

My intention was to not formulate a banket ban on firearms, but to
express my fears of firearms getting to people who should not be
allowed to use them. I have no problem with an experienced, trained
person having firearms, if he takes care they cannot be easily taken
from him in (for instance) a robbery. Hence my phrase good lock and
key.

So, in your view, there are those who should not be allowed to own a
firearm. Particularily those who've not been experienced or trained.

Let me ask you this: How much experience and training do YOU (or almost
everyone else) have with fire extinguishers?

You may respond by noting that it's not the same thing; I suggest it is.
Fire extinguishers are used to save lives and property - so are guns.

Well, you may say, use of a fire extinguisher is self-evident; you don't
need a bunch of training. I assert the same is true of a revolver. You
point, you pull the trigger - exactly the same as a fire extinguisher except
you don't have to remove the safety pin. Further, anybody who's ever been to
a western movie has the idea down pat.

In desperation, you point out that innocent people are not at risk by the
improper use of a fire extinguisher but that's not so with guns.

Ask me if I give a ****. If some goblin is trying to break down my bedroom
door, I am indifferent in the extreme to the innocent baby in the apartment
next door.

Two parties
 

Robatoy wrote in news:6a1a52f1-7c38-45eb-b06e-
:

I wasn't talking about Han!!

I'm sure glad, you had me confused (not a new situation ...)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Let me ask you this: How much experience and training do YOU (or almost
everyone else) have with fire extinguishers?

Any self-respecting company that has the need for fire extinguishers does
or at least should give their employees training in the use of fire
extinguishers.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Let me ask you this: How much experience and training do YOU (or almost
everyone else) have with fire extinguishers?

Any self-respecting company that has the need for fire extinguishers does
or at least should give their employees training in the use of fire
extinguishers.

I've worked for several large self respecting companies that had fire
extinguishers behind the glass cover all over the place. Not one ever
saw the need for fire extinguisher training as simple and clear
instructions were printed on the things. They did have regular fire
drills. Having had to use a home fire extinguisher, I can't imagine
what any training might involve except how to clean up the mess.

Two parties
 

In article , Doug Winterburn wrote:


I've worked for several large self respecting companies that had fire
extinguishers behind the glass cover all over the place. Not one ever
saw the need for fire extinguisher training as simple and clear
instructions were printed on the things. They did have regular fire
drills. Having had to use a home fire extinguisher, I can't imagine
what any training might involve except how to clean up the mess.

Actually, there *is* at least one respect in which training (perhaps
"instruction" is a better word) is of great value: the need to aim the
extinguisher at the *base* of the flames. Apparently that's not immediately
obvious to everyone.

Two parties
 

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Doug Winterburn wrote:

I've worked for several large self respecting companies that had fire
extinguishers behind the glass cover all over the place. Not one ever
saw the need for fire extinguisher training as simple and clear
instructions were printed on the things. They did have regular fire
drills. Having had to use a home fire extinguisher, I can't imagine
what any training might involve except how to clean up the mess.

Actually, there *is* at least one respect in which training (perhaps
"instruction" is a better word) is of great value: the need to aim the
extinguisher at the *base* of the flames. Apparently that's not immediately
obvious to everyone.

True. The instructions printed (in large print) on my Kidde home
extinguisher state exactly that.

Two parties
 

Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Doug Winterburn
wrote:

I've worked for several large self respecting companies that had
fire extinguishers behind the glass cover all over the place. Not
one ever saw the need for fire extinguisher training as simple and
clear instructions were printed on the things. They did have
regular fire drills. Having had to use a home fire extinguisher, I
can't imagine what any training might involve except how to clean up
the mess.

Actually, there *is* at least one respect in which training (perhaps
"instruction" is a better word) is of great value: the need to aim
the extinguisher at the *base* of the flames. Apparently that's not
immediately obvious to everyone.

True. The instructions printed (in large print) on my Kidde home
extinguisher state exactly that.

IMNSHO, anyone who might have to use a fire extinguisher in the course of
their work should practice at least once. Maybe I'm anal, but it was the
first thing we learned in organic chemistry lab (a 3-month course at the
time). It did come in very handy.

I'm also glad I had the "training" on several other occasions. I will
never forgive the Harvard flunky who berated me for using a CO2
extinguisher on a waste basket paper fire in the School of Public Health.
I should have used a simpler extinguisher. There wasn't any handy, and
the CO2 was there.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Two parties
 

On 2/8/2010 6:57 PM, Han wrote:

I'm also glad I had the "training" on several other occasions. I will
never forgive the Harvard flunky who berated me for using a CO2
extinguisher on a waste basket paper fire in the School of Public Health.
I should have used a simpler extinguisher. There wasn't any handy, and
the CO2 was there.

I hope you turned the horn his way and frosted his glasses/sinuses. :)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/