|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 27 Dec 2012 02:02:53 GMT, Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in eb.com: On 12/26/2012 06:50 PM, Han wrote: wrote in : On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:26:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote: On 12/25/2012 08:20 PM, Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Someone thought it was a "good idea" to exempt gun shows from the need for background checks. I really don't know how to keep a crazy guy from getting a gun in a country (apparently) awash in them. Politicians like Bloomberg like to tout the loopholes in the law as they relate to gun shows, but it pays to dig a bit deeper. Dealers are required to perform NICS checks - even at gun shows. Private individuals are not. So if you show up to sell a gun, there is no requirement for a NICS check. So - gun shows are not exempt from background checks. So the loophole is a little more complicated. The dealer just has to sell the gun to a bystander who would not fail a background check. This individual can then just sell the gun to someone who would fail a background check. I seem to recall a TV report from one of the major networks, where there were plenty of people willing to sell a gun to someone who wouldn't pass a background check. I thin those sales should be officially illegal. Period. Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do? Have you so little regard for shooter in the US that you think they intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are unstable or criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the most law abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the media that are the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people to buy into those lies.... ...and carrying illegal weapons in DC. I indeed think that CNN reporter should be issued a summons and if found guilty, he should NOT get off easy. Obviously if he had a cardboard copy, that may be an extenuating circumstance. I also think that (if he had a real working magazine) the person who gave or sold it to him should go to jail. Btw, while it may have been legal to publish all those names and addresses of legal firearm owners in Westchester and Rockland counties, it was at least highly unethical. That newspaper editor and journalist need to go for aggravated stupidity. Perhaps it would even the score to publish the names and addresses of all those folks who had no firearms? This was (I read this, but didn't check) published as a map. So every home not listed as having a registered gun owner had either a homeowner without a gun, or with an illegal gun. When you go out harvesting loot, pray you pick the "right" home ... That idiot reporter should be hung out to dry ... Double for the editor and publisher. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 27 Dec 2012 13:16:09 GMT, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in : On 12/26/2012 07:46 PM, Han wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote in : Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do? Have you so little regard for shooter in the US that you think they intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are unstable or criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the most law abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the media that are the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people to buy into those lies.... Obviously 99% or more of gun owners are law abiding, honest, careful etc. However, that does not prevent a few of not being so, does it? There are some 8 million people either in New York City, or the immediate metro area. In all of New York State there are some 70,000 prisoners, or less than 0.09%. And by far not all are there because of firearm offenses in New York City. See how safe we are? Still, people don't like getting shot, and IMNSHO we should do more to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. As you can see from the simple statistics here, arming everyone is NOT the solution. I don't think keeping track of the more potent weapons now in circulation will be easy, but then, Americans are known for coming up with ingenious solutions. I'm waiting. Until something better comes up, I think that registration, licensing and insuring guns and gun owners should be tried. All AR-15, similar and more potent to start with, with handguns not far behind. I know there will be many against such, but (again IMNSHO) the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the unfettered distribution of firearms. Let's see if I have the logic here right: - A very small minority of people misuse guns (you suggest 1% but the number is actually much lower). Almost right. At least 1 order of magnitude less. I said less than 0.09% - The people misusing guns are - by definition - doing something illegal. Misuse includes careless storage as well as criminal acitvities. Define "careless storage". What about the nightstand and sock drawer? ....or do they have to be placed where I can't get to them if needed? BTW, the metro area here is 4.5M. Guns are easy to get and (carry) licenses cost a bit but are issued on request. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:01 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask? People "of the liberal bent" simply cannot understand cost/benefit tradeoffs (or dynamics, but that's a separate issue). There are well over a million defensive uses of guns per year. That's over a million (two million by some counts) crimes that *don't* happen because of guns. How many lives that saves is unknowable but they refuse to even count the ones that are known. They can only tally the deaths on one side. The reason? Probably because they know what the answer is and are simply looking for the excuse to implement their agenda. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Mike I am totally naive as to how illegal guns come into the city. It is said that the above route is an important supply line. There are also a few bad cops who sell weapons they could get their hands on. And there are probably other ways. Which ones??? I saw a NYC police commissioner (or some such...) make a statement that thousands (or tens of thousands) of illegal guns enter NYC every year from gun shows. What a fool. But - it makes very sensational press and people who wouldn't have reason to think about stuff like this otherwise, just believe it because of who he is. I understand that the police have traced the weapons of the Webster NY shooter back to the manufacturer, or forward from the manufacturer. As I understand it they can recover the serial numbers even if someone tried to obliterate them. I think that each owner of a weapon should be responsible for it. So if a bad guy obtains a weapon, the last prior owner is responsible. Period. I agree that people should be responsible with their weapons, but I also think your closing statement is just foolish. There could be circumstances under which it would make sense to hold the owner responsible, but once again - think about it Han. A huge amount of illegal weapons come in on the warfs and such - who are you going to hold responsible as the owner? What if the owner is the shooter and he was in fact legal under the provisions of our laws, to buy that gun? Back to where this conversation was a couple of days ago. They can indeed recover serial numbers - sometimes. There are ways to ensure they can't. Most crooks don't bother. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:3m6uq9-k862.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com: 2) The majority of [firearms deaths] happen in drug-related territorial wars, not as accidents. Correct. Deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm comprise approximately 2.5% of all firearm deaths, and 0.7% of all accidental deaths. 3) "Enormously larger" - Better check your math. There are something like 1700 deaths by gun per year in the US. Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from year to year, but these are the figures for last year: Suicide: 19,766 Homicide: 11,101 Accident: 851 Undetermined: 222 Total: 31940 Source: Preliminary data for 2011 www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf There are 30,000+ auto accidents. I should say so. g Presumably, you meant to write "There are 30,000+ deaths from auto accidents". Actual figure (from the same source) is 34,677. Why do You And Yours not focus on the single most dangerous thing threatening American lives: Small, light cars driving at expressway speeds. We need laws to make sure everyone is forced to drive 5000 pound SUVs because it "saves lives". Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either Marlboros, or Big Macs. More than half a million Americans died of cancer last year, and more than three-quarters of a million from cardiovascular disease. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? More crazy people? -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this? How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system? Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have liability insurance? What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance have to do with it Han? -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Thinking about problems is a good thing, but you obviously don't know what laws already exist and how effective or ineffective they are. Mike, please tell me how the guns come into the city? I know they are ineffective, and I know we can't possibly get it all totally 100% right. But the current laws aren't working. And I think it is more the laxity of laws elsewhere and the loopholes in the federal statutes that are the cause. Han - when have you ever seen a law that the criminal element respected? Almost everything you've said in this conversation has been about legal and responsible gun owners and your desire to further limit their ownership of guns. And then you wander off talking about things that are already illegal, and are being done by criminals who hold no regard for the law, and you think more laws is going to change that? Really? -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi0b9$qga$1@dont-
email.me: Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. Not only that -- high-capacity magazines are harder to conceal, and jam more often. So a ban on high-capacity magazines may well do more harm than good, by forcing evildoers to carry more effective weapons that are more readily concealed. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? Because that isn't true, that's why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate Just FYI, Han: compare firearm death rates in the US vs. Canada: 10.2 per 100,000 population in the US, 4.78 in Canada -- but firearm *ownership* per capita in the US is 0.888, vs. 0.308 in Canada. In other words, the US has *three* times the rate of gun *ownership* as Canada, but only *twice* the rate of gun *deaths*. Looks to me like it's Canada that has the problem... |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this? How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system? Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have liability insurance? What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance have to do with it Han? Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry that insurance. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 27/12/2012 1:16 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi0b9$qga$1@dont- email.me: Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. Not only that -- high-capacity magazines are harder to conceal, and jam more often. So a ban on high-capacity magazines may well do more harm than good, by forcing evildoers to carry more effective weapons that are more readily concealed. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? Because that isn't true, that's why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate Just FYI, Han: compare firearm death rates in the US vs. Canada: 10.2 per 100,000 population in the US, 4.78 in Canada -- but firearm *ownership* per capita in the US is 0.888, vs. 0.308 in Canada. In other words, the US has *three* times the rate of gun *ownership* as Canada, but only *twice* the rate of gun *deaths*. Looks to me like it's Canada that has the problem... Wow! Talk about twisted logic! Anything to justify your fetish! Gil |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/12 12:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an undisputable fact. undisputable? I don't think that is a word. Indisputable, maybe? But that's not why you called. :-) Whatever word you use, that "fact" is pure bull****. How many "semi-automatic military assault weapons" did Timothy McVeigh use? Sociopaths will find a way to kill people. Restricting the liberties of millions of law abiding citizens does *nothing* to stop or even hinder sociopaths from killing people. -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Mike I am totally naive as to how illegal guns come into the city. It is said that the above route is an important supply line. There are also a few bad cops who sell weapons they could get their hands on. And there are probably other ways. Which ones??? I saw a NYC police commissioner (or some such...) make a statement that thousands (or tens of thousands) of illegal guns enter NYC every year from gun shows. What a fool. But - it makes very sensational press and people who wouldn't have reason to think about stuff like this otherwise, just believe it because of who he is. Statements like that are indeed made by supposedly responsible police officials. Do you have evidence that such statements are lies? It could be, of course, because I'd never thought it, but Giuliani's police commissioner (Bernie Kerik) turned out to be a crook, or he got caught in something he really didn't mean to do, and had to serve time. The current commissioner, Kelly, has kept his nose clean thus far. I understand that the police have traced the weapons of the Webster NY shooter back to the manufacturer, or forward from the manufacturer. As I understand it they can recover the serial numbers even if someone tried to obliterate them. I think that each owner of a weapon should be responsible for it. So if a bad guy obtains a weapon, the last prior owner is responsible. Period. I agree that people should be responsible with their weapons, but I also think your closing statement is just foolish. There could be circumstances under which it would make sense to hold the owner responsible, but once again - think about it Han. A huge amount of illegal weapons come in on the warfs and such - who are you going to hold responsible as the owner? Who would you hold responsible? If caught the trafficker would be my first choice (recipient and or sender). If either of them implicate a willing supplier, that one should also be held responsible. They are by definition (I think) conspirators. If the weapons were stolen and timely notice of theft was given to police and ATF (??), the person from whom the weapons were stolen would have diminished responsibilities. What if the owner is the shooter and he was in fact legal under the provisions of our laws, to buy that gun? Back to where this conversation was a couple of days ago. Someone legally owning a gun, then using it for illegal ends is by definition a criminal and responsible for his misdeeds. No one (to my knowledge) has said anything about the Lanza home and what will happen to it. I would expect that it is an asset to be recovered by the next of kin of the victims. They can indeed recover serial numbers - sometimes. There are ways to ensure they can't. Most crooks don't bother. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 27 Dec 2012 13:16:09 GMT, Han wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote in : On 12/26/2012 07:46 PM, Han wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote in : Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do? Have you so little regard for shooter in the US that you think they intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are unstable or criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the most law abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the media that are the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people to buy into those lies.... Obviously 99% or more of gun owners are law abiding, honest, careful etc. However, that does not prevent a few of not being so, does it? There are some 8 million people either in New York City, or the immediate metro area. In all of New York State there are some 70,000 prisoners, or less than 0.09%. And by far not all are there because of firearm offenses in New York City. See how safe we are? Still, people don't like getting shot, and IMNSHO we should do more to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. As you can see from the simple statistics here, arming everyone is NOT the solution. I don't think keeping track of the more potent weapons now in circulation will be easy, but then, Americans are known for coming up with ingenious solutions. I'm waiting. Until something better comes up, I think that registration, licensing and insuring guns and gun owners should be tried. All AR-15, similar and more potent to start with, with handguns not far behind. I know there will be many against such, but (again IMNSHO) the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the unfettered distribution of firearms. Let's see if I have the logic here right: - A very small minority of people misuse guns (you suggest 1% but the number is actually much lower). Almost right. At least 1 order of magnitude less. I said less than 0.09% - The people misusing guns are - by definition - doing something illegal. Misuse includes careless storage as well as criminal acitvities. You forget the fact that most crimes -aren't- committed with stolen guns. - Your proposed solutions is to legislate more laws for ... the other 99+ % of the population. 'See any flaws with that? No I don't see anything wrong with that. There are 7 billion people on earth. Only a few hundred or thousand at most are active terrorists. Still we have to take our shoes off at the airport. All except Arabs, who are whisked through as not to ruffle their dignity. "We don't profile." says the TSA. Go figure. All car owners have to get their cars insected for safety and pollution issues, although 99% pass each inspection. Nobody sees anything wrong. Firearms are inherent capable of rendering harm is misused. It is impossible to correctly identify all Spengers without incarcerating many totally innocent people. Keep better track of the guns and really punish those who sell them to their ineligible buddies. And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. The extremely vast majority of gun deaths don't use more than one or two bullets. Why are you guys knee-jerking to the minor percentage which happen with semi-automatic rifles? Hey, are you also wanting to outlaw hammers, Spengler's first weapon of choice? Also outlaw icy walks, soapy bathtubs, knives (including butter knives), sticks, clubs, baseball bats, rope, wire, rocks, bricks, and everything else which can kill a person, right? Fine idea. ;) Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? Why are you going after guns, anyway? Isn't it the criminals who are the problem? Insane people do nasty things. Let's lock 'em up and manage their problems in asylums. That's cheaper than repairing the damage they do on the outside, trying them, burying their dead, and then incarcerating them in prison, only to let them out later. Doesn't taking care of the actual persons committing crimes seem like a better idea to you, Han? If not, why not? -- You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others, or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are. -- Jeph Jacques |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Gil wrote in
: On 27/12/2012 1:16 PM, Doug Miller wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi0b9$qga$1 @dont- email.me: Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. Not only that -- high-capacity magazines are harder to conceal, and jam more often. So a ban on high-capacity magazines may well do more harm than good, by forcing evildoers to carry more effective weapons that are more readily concealed. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? Because that isn't true, that's why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate Just FYI, Han: compare firearm death rates in the US vs. Canada: 10.2 per 100,000 population in the US, 4.78 in Canada -- but firearm *ownership* per capita in the US is 0.888, vs. 0.308 in Canada. In other words, the US has *three* times the rate of gun *ownership* as Canada, but only *twice* the rate of gun *deaths*. Looks to me like it's Canada that has the problem... Wow! Talk about twisted logic! Anything to justify your fetish! Ad hominem response noted. Failure to respond to the facts also noted. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: On 12/27/2012 07:16 AM, Han wrote: The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civili 1) Because of our stupid drug laws. Interestingly, the rate of violent assault and home invasion is far higher outside the US than within AND the US violent crime rates have fallen precipitously even in the face of the wide availability of guns AND the sunsetting the the absurd "assault weapons ban": http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/Am...Believe-Crime- Worsening.aspx Already the first sentence is highly irrational. That poll is only worth reading as a corroboration of generalilliteracy in the US. 2) The majority of these happen in drug-related territorial wars, not as accidents. Most Americans simply do not care if drug dealers kill each other. Probably. Does that mean the violence is justified? Remember, much of the violence impacts innocent bystanders more than the perpetrator and the intended subject of his violence. 3) "Enormously larger" - Better check your math. There are something like 1700 deaths by gun per year in the US. There are 30,000+ auto accidents. Why do You And Yours not focus on the single most dangerous thing threatening American lives: Small, light cars driving at expressway speeds. We need laws to make sure everyone is forced to drive 5000 pound SUVs because it "saves lives". Apples and oranges. Compare gun-related violence here and abroad. that is the comparison. As I said, we are trying to do things about automobile accidents and negligence. Does that exempt firearms from attention? Your position is irrational. There are something like 300 million guns in the country and 1700 deaths by criminals, but you want to punish the 99.9999999999999999% of gun owners that are completely responsible. I am in favor of gun owners being responsible (obviously!). However, something needs to be done to prevent repeats of Newtown and Webster. While it may make sense for everyone in rural Nebraska who is hours away from police and other first responders to have the means of selfdefense, I don't think it is a good idea in cities or suburbs. Mrs. Lanza showed that. So we are back to where we were. Ideally there would be no idiots with high power rifles. How to prevent them from getting them?? The Ant-Gun Movement: Where reason, sanity, and careful thought go to die. I think you meant to say anti-gun. I meant this discussion to be polite and educational. I have certainly learned some things. Unfortunately, I still conclude that there is no need for Bushmaster-type rifles and high capacity magazines for them. P.S. I think the sanctimonious and self-important gun banners should be consistent in their demands because they want to "Save The Children (tm)": http://www.allmax.com/MILT/ We are waiting for the agency responsible for regulating table saw safety to make rulings ... And indeed, stupid people like myself could have hurt themselves even more than I did myself, and a Sawstop might have prevented some of that. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Doug Miller wrote in
: Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:3m6uq9-k862.ln1 @ozzie.tundraware.com: 2) The majority of [firearms deaths] happen in drug-related territorial wars, not as accidents. Correct. Deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm comprise approximately 2.5% of all firearm deaths, and 0.7% of all accidental deaths. 3) "Enormously larger" - Better check your math. There are something like 1700 deaths by gun per year in the US. Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from year to year, but these are the figures for last year: Suicide: 19,766 Homicide: 11,101 Accident: 851 Undetermined: 222 Total: 31940 Source: Preliminary data for 2011 www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf There are 30,000+ auto accidents. I should say so. g Presumably, you meant to write "There are 30,000+ deaths from auto accidents". Actual figure (from the same source) is 34,677. Why do You And Yours not focus on the single most dangerous thing threatening American lives: Small, light cars driving at expressway speeds. We need laws to make sure everyone is forced to drive 5000 pound SUVs because it "saves lives". Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either Marlboros, or Big Macs. More than half a million Americans died of cancer last year, and more than three-quarters of a million from cardiovascular disease. LOL (but that is not at the victims) -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. If you can fire more (I don't know how many more) than 1 round per second with a Bushmaster, 2 seconds seems like a long time, enough to attack the guy like happened in Tucson. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? More crazy people? Seems that way. I too, would indict education. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Doug Miller wrote in
: "Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi0b9$qga$1@dont- email.me: Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. Not only that -- high-capacity magazines are harder to conceal, and jam more often. So a ban on high-capacity magazines may well do more harm than good, by forcing evildoers to carry more effective weapons that are more readily concealed. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? Because that isn't true, that's why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...-related_death _rate Just FYI, Han: compare firearm death rates in the US vs. Canada: 10.2 per 100,000 population in the US, 4.78 in Canada -- but firearm *ownership* per capita in the US is 0.888, vs. 0.308 in Canada. In other words, the US has *three* times the rate of gun *ownership* as Canada, but only *twice* the rate of gun *deaths*. Looks to me like it's Canada that has the problem... Seems to me that illustrates the problem - too many loose guns. I would guess that the other part of your comparison says that the US shooters aren't very good shots. Sorry, I know I am trivializing a real problem. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/2012 11:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from year to year, but these are the figures for last year: You're right - I should have stipulated homicides since I do not believe suicide should be classified as a gun "crime". The person in question will - tragically - find some way or another with or without a gun. Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either Marlboros, or Big Macs. OK, fine. But my point stands. The antigunners are attacking a non problem by punishing the uninvolved and thereby not affecting the actual criminal perpetrators. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Thinking about problems is a good thing, but you obviously don't know what laws already exist and how effective or ineffective they are. Mike, please tell me how the guns come into the city? I know they are ineffective, and I know we can't possibly get it all totally 100% right. But the current laws aren't working. And I think it is more the laxity of laws elsewhere and the loopholes in the federal statutes that are the cause. Han - when have you ever seen a law that the criminal element respected? Almost everything you've said in this conversation has been about legal and responsible gun owners and your desire to further limit their ownership of guns. And then you wander off talking about things that are already illegal, and are being done by criminals who hold no regard for the law, and you think more laws is going to change that? Really? You're unwilling to see what is clear to me. The current system with its many loopholes is making it too easy for the criminals and wannabee criminals to get the guns. What is worse, that 20 kids and 6 of their teachers are now dead, or that John Gunowner increases his safekeeping of his guns? -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 27 Dec 2012 13:35:41 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 27 Dec 2012 01:46:40 GMT, Han wrote: Tim Daneliuk wrote in : Do you ACTUALLY think this is what gun buyers do? Have you so little regard for shooter in the US that you think they intentionally peddle weapons to people they know are unstable or criminals? Gun owners are - on the whole - among the most law abiding straight arrows you'll ever find. It's the media that are the criminals ... for telling lies and getting people to buy into those lies.... Obviously 99% or more of gun owners are law abiding, honest, careful etc. However, that does not prevent a few of not being so, does it? There are some 8 million people either in New York City, or the immediate metro area. In all of New York State there are some 70,000 prisoners, or less than 0.09%. And by far not all are there because of firearm offenses in New York City. See how safe we are? Still, people don't like getting shot, and IMNSHO we should do more to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. As you can see from the simple statistics here, arming everyone is NOT the solution. I don't think keeping track of the more potent weapons now in circulation will be easy, but then, Americans are known for coming up with ingenious solutions. I'm waiting. Until something better comes up, I think that registration, licensing and insuring guns and gun owners should be tried. All AR-15, similar and more potent to start with, with handguns not far behind. I know there will be many against such, but (again IMNSHO) the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the unfettered distribution of firearms. That's true. We can't own RPGs, artillery, tanks, or even the smallest of nuclear devices. ;) Han, until it fully sinks into your brain that: 1) legal owners of firearms are NOT doing these crimes and 2) legal weapons are NOT being used to do the crimes (except after being stolen) and 3) crazies, criminals, gangs, and illegal weapons _are_ and 4) crazies, criminals, and gangs don't register illegal weapons My point is that criminals and semicriminals (my buddy needs a gun ...) are the main cause of the misuse of guns. Please state cite for that one. Whoever told you that is wrong. So responsible use isn't universal, and when that gets extended to weapons of the Bushmaster ilk, the consequences are rather horrible. I still have to hear of a reason that I would consider valid for owning such a weapon in an individual's home. I can see the "fun" of firing it at a range, but then it should be locked up in a really effective way so it can't possibly be used irresponsibly. If that can't be guaranteed (I know), then the weapon shouldn't be owned by individuals, just like real military weapons. You do know that use of "assault weapons" comprises only 2.8% of all gun crime, don't you? you'll be counting and limiting _the_wrong_weapons_ and _the_wrong_people in those registries and that doesn't stop a -single- crime from being committed. The (IMO) terrible thing is that you are probably correct. All because the genie is out of the bottle by now, and it will be impossible to retrace all those weapons in circulation. Absolutely, but why are you going after guns? Guns don't kill people. _People_ do. I just don't see why folks of the liberal bent fail to understand such as simple concept. You are far from being alone in thinking that. I think part of it is being angry at guns in general rather than the people who are abusing them. Why is that, if I may ask? Obviously weapons have their uses. And I am indeed anti-gun for private citizens, other than really self-defense weapons. Do we have to go back to the Al Capone days?? We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it. Registries are used to track down lawful citizens and lawful weapons. How does that stop crime? Ever? Perhaps, as someone else said, there isn't enough effort and money spent to prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands. The weapons Spenger used were legally produced and sold, except Spenger illegally got his hands on them. Soon we'll know how he managed to do that. I wonder how you then will propose to prevent the same thing from happening again. Lock up the crazies and use the death penalty (exclusively) on the extremely violent criminals. ZERO recidivism. And please tell your local/state/federal representatives that we need to separate gang deaths and suicides from the firearms related deaths to get a rational number. The former two will be the majority causes, I'm sure. Gang deaths are just to be written of? Suicides too? Apart from the fact that those events are officially illegal, they are also tragic, though not (perhaps) on the same level as the deaths of those first graders and their teachers in Newtown, CT. Oh, no. Just separated in the statistics. Then YOU guys will know who the bad guys are. And gun suicides are included in handgun crime statistics now, ruining the validity of the stat. Suicide isn't a violent crime against another human being. Now look at this chart and tell me how guns are so bad. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pd..._2007_bw-a.pdf Four times more people die from simply falling down. Traffic fatalities are 10x the rate, suicide 7x. More people die accidentally under their own pillows than by homicide from guns. Please get some _perspective_. Larry, we do all kinds of things to prevent falls, accidental poisoning, traffic accidents, and so on. But we should ignore firearms-related deaths? We DON'T! There are lots of laws regarding gun sales and registry on the books now. They don't address the criminal aspect of it, though. They're concentrated on law-abiding citizens like us and they don't stop crime at all. I'd be totally on board if schools (and civilian groups like the Boy Scouts) started teaching its students how to shoot, as they used to do. That would immediately remove all the accidental gun deaths by kids who were never taught to handle weapons. Come on ... And homicide by gun is easily prevented. Get rid of the gun. Jesus Christ, Han. I know you're smarter than that. Yes, you get rid of guns and what does the criminal do? (Hammer wielding Spengler comes immediately to mind) He simply picks up whatever other tool he wishes to kill someone with. The -crime- still happens, even without guns. But now you can't protect yourself from a guy with a knife or bat (or illegal gun), can you? And the drop in gun homicide would be instantly offset by knife/baseball bat/brick/rock/vase/bow&arrow, etc. homicide. Plus, you'd have to add up all the crime which used to be prevented by a criminal simply -seeing- a guy protecting himself by unholstering a concealed carry gun in front of him. None of those are reported to the police because a crime was prevented, not committed. Estimates in the US for prevention are estimated at 3/4 to 3 million per year. Take the preventive and assistance-to-law-enforcement gun use away and we have more crime, more deaths, and more dead cops. The question is: Do you want that blood on your hands, sir? -- You can either hold yourself up to the unrealistic standards of others, or ignore them and concentrate on being happy with yourself as you are. -- Jeph Jacques |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/2012 12:51 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. If you can fire more (I don't know how many more) than 1 round per second with a Bushmaster, 2 seconds seems like a long time, enough to attack the guy like happened in Tucson. One shot per trigger pull on any semi-automatic firearm. Sorry if I offend anyone, but the current systems don't work. The US has an enormously larger gun-related death rate than any other civilized country. WHY??? More crazy people? Seems that way. I too, would indict education. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/2012 12:51 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. If you can fire more (I don't know how many more) than 1 round per second with a Bushmaster, 2 seconds seems like a long time, enough to attack the guy like happened in Tucson. One shot per trigger pull on any semi-automatic firearm. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Tim Daneliuk wrote in
: On 12/27/2012 07:35 AM, Han wrote: nd when that gets extended to weapons of the Bushmaster ilk, You simply do not know what you're talking about. Period. I have head weapons of that "ilk" in my hands on- and off since I was a young teenager. No on got hurt, not one got threatened, and no crime was committed. You know why? Because it isn't the tool it's the carpenter, duh... A Bushmaster, AR, AK, H&K, or any other weapon from single shot to full-auto is not inherently more- or less dangerous. The person holding it is more- or less dangerous. And now we get to the nub of the issue. Ever since the counterculture of the 1960s (aka "The Smelliest Generation") we've been told that evil is not an objective thing. That we should instead try to understand the context and suffering of the poor criminal whose is, in fact, a victim of something or other: poverty, racism, bullying, bad breath ... whatever. The left has successfully turned almost everyone into a victim and thereby relieved them of moral responsibility. Sandy Hook is the result. Until the society decides that evil is inexcusable - no matter what the mitigating circumstances - we will continue to see this sort of thing ... and the political left will continue to assault our liberty in a vain hope that neutering everyone will make evil go away. They are - as always - dead wrong about almost everything. Tim, I like to distance myself from the dogooders. Laws of unintended consequences and stuff. But Sandy Hook is not the result of the left doing anything. Sandy Hook is the result of easily available weapons, a disturbed young man, and a mother who tried to help instill self- confidence etc in her son in the wrong way. Moreover, Mom did not foresee what son could do with those weapons. As far as I am concerned, I think you and many others have shown you can handle the responsibility. The fact of 30-odd thousand gun deaths (wasn't that the figure?) shows that there are too many who can't. So are we calling the Aurora victims, Sandy Hook kids and teachers, and Webster firefighters just poor collateral damage? -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this? How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has "many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system? Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have liability insurance? What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance have to do with it Han? Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry that insurance. I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote:
(Scott Lurndal) wrote in : If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an undisputable fact. No, it's not "undisputable fact", it's just uninformed nonsense. Or do you really suppose that it is impossible to fatally shoot people with weapons such as a revolver, a pump-action shotgun, or a bolt-action rifle? In fact the largest school killing in the US was done with a bomb in 1927, there have always been crazies and always will be. basilisk |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
Statements like that are indeed made by supposedly responsible police officials. Do you have evidence that such statements are lies? It could be, of course, because I'd never thought it, but Giuliani's police commissioner (Bernie Kerik) turned out to be a crook, or he got caught in something he really didn't mean to do, and had to serve time. The current commissioner, Kelly, has kept his nose clean thus far. Dwell upon the numbers sometime Han. You might want to attend a gun show at some point to see just exactly what they are like. You'll be able to discern for yourself at that point. Who would you hold responsible? If caught the trafficker would be my first choice (recipient and or sender). If either of them implicate a willing supplier, that one should also be held responsible. They are by definition (I think) conspirators. If the weapons were stolen and timely notice of theft was given to police and ATF (??), the person from whom the weapons were stolen would have diminished responsibilities. The problem in most of your claims Han is they are over populated with what you think. Your opinion. You base your opinions on what makes you feel good and not a lot on practicality. Someone legally owning a gun, then using it for illegal ends is by definition a criminal and responsible for his misdeeds. No one (to my knowledge) has said anything about the Lanza home and what will happen to it. I would expect that it is an asset to be recovered by the next of kin of the victims. But - you would have the person who sold the guns in the recent tragedies, held responsible. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/2012 01:11 PM, basilisk wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:37:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote: (Scott Lurndal) wrote in : If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an undisputable fact. No, it's not "undisputable fact", it's just uninformed nonsense. Or do you really suppose that it is impossible to fatally shoot people with weapons such as a revolver, a pump-action shotgun, or a bolt-action rifle? In fact the largest school killing in the US was done with a bomb in 1927, there have always been crazies and always will be. basilisk ....and the largest mass killing of children was done in Waco. -- "Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" -Winston Churchill |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: And that includes banning high capacity magazines and licensing the munitions. Ya know Han - if you thought through more of the positions you allow people to plant in your brain, you wouldn't say so many things like this. What good will it do to ban "high capacity" magazines? Do you know how long it takes even a sub-average shooter to pop and replace a magazine? A second or two. What will your feel good law really accomplish? Shooters will simply carry more smaller capacity magazines. If you can fire more (I don't know how many more) than 1 round per second with a Bushmaster, 2 seconds seems like a long time, enough to attack the guy like happened in Tucson. Think Han. Two seconds. Who do you imagine is/was going to attempt, or be able to rise up and confront this guy in two seconds? I realize you really want to see a solution to this stuff, but you are really reaching in desparation with your thoughts. You can indeed shoot more than one round per second with a gun like that - you can shoot that fast with a simple pump action shotgun. Here's the thing Han - you are trying (an I credit you for that), but you are making assumptions and forming conclusions on things you just don't even understand. Not to fault you for not understanding them, but that makes a very weak platform for forming good conclusions. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
If you can fire more (I don't know how many more) than 1 round per second with a Bushmaster, 2 seconds seems like a long time, enough to attack the guy like happened in Tucson. It really would depend on the scene. In Tucson, there were tons of people around who could act immediately. Likely some were already acting before the shooter had to reload. In Newtown - not so much. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
You're unwilling to see what is clear to me. The current system with its many loopholes is making it too easy for the criminals and wannabee criminals to get the guns. What is worse, that 20 kids and 6 of their teachers are now dead, or that John Gunowner increases his safekeeping of his guns? In this discussion, you've taken a position on 1) gun show loopholes because you heard a politician talk about that, 2) mass gun trafficing from mid-Atlantic states into NYC - which seems to be a problem you have discovered yourself, 3) hi-cap magazines, 4) AR style weapons, 5) owner's rights to keep their guns at home, 6) liability insurance, 7) safekeeping of guns. There's probably more that you have advocated but the intent of my reply is not to ridicule your thoughts, but to show how they are popping all over the map in a manner that really looks like you are not at all thought through on this issue, but rather reacting in a somewhat desperate manner. I get concerned when good people who have the right to vote find themselves in that desperate place, while there are self serving politicians and social leaders with their own agenda, plying these good people with fear and half truths. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Tim Daneliuk wrote in news:ljluq9-0ue1.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com: On 12/27/2012 11:20 AM, Doug Miller wrote: Incorrect. There are approximately 30,000 deaths by gun per year in the U.S. It varies from year to year, but these are the figures for last year: You're right - I should have stipulated homicides since I do not believe suicide should be classified as a gun "crime". The person in question will - tragically - find some way or another with or without a gun. Even the number of homicides is *far* higher than the "1,700" you stated, by a factor of about seven. Incorrect. The "single most dangerous thing threatening American lives" is either Marlboros, or Big Macs. OK, fine. But my point stands. The antigunners are attacking a non problem by punishing the uninvolved and thereby not affecting the actual criminal perpetrators. Agreed. But you do not help your case by drastically understating the actual number of firearm deaths, or firearm homicides. Again: 31,940 total U.S. deaths in 2011 due to the discharge of a firearm, of which 11,101 were homicides. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 12/27/2012 12:24 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
If the shooter in conn. didn't have, or have access to a semi-automatic military assault weapon, all those kids would still be alive. That is an undisputable fact. No it's not a "fact" of any kind: 1) You don't know what he would have done had he not had access to an SA weapon. The day after Sandy Hook, 20 people so were *knifed* in China. 2) "Military assault weapon" is an undefined and undefinable notion. The military uses full auto, for one thing. Moreover, something isn't more dangerous because it looks "military". This little chestnut is just more droning from the left because they don't understand guns as tools but instead have a sort of mystical understanding of weapons. In related news, the fork made Rosie O'Donnell fat ... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter