|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 28 Dec 2012 13:18:13 GMT, Han wrote:
Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously. Fully agree with your last statement. Absolutely INANE comments. To legalize drugs is to usher in a whole new class of drug addicts. Are YOU willing to pay for the extra law enforcement, medical facilities and prisons to handle all those extra drug addicts? And don't even bother trying to compare legalized drugs to legally purchased alcohol. They're different types of addiction. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1 : 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. Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons. I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to carry. Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the range (sport/competition). If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours. That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were properly secured and stored. The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss ratios. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote: Han wrote in : Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper- like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on crowded streets. Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously. Legalizing drugs may make a small dent in their funding. Legalize prostitution and you will dry up another SIGNIFICANT source of gang revenue - if by legalizing it you can guarantee that NOBODY will be fighting over the profits/control of the trade. Legalizing tobacco has not eliminated the trade in illicit (untaxed) tobacco, and the criminal element involvement in it's production, impoortation, and distribution. Same can be said for booze. Still lots of bootlegging going on, and smuggling/sale of untaxed liquor. Remove the profits from drugs and the criminal element / gangs will just find something more attractive to make their money on - and continue killing over it. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:56:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: Even if your dreams came true and every single legally owned and registered EVIL GUN was taken out of our hands and melted down, tomorrow would be a red letter day in the life of criminals. You see, all their guns would be black market, and the number coming across the borders (from Mexico and Canada) would increase 100-fold to keep up with their wants and needs. Only NOW, with all the rest of us disarmed, they'd do anything and everything they wanted all day long. Are you happy now? By the way, a crazy with a machete could walk into a crowd and take down twenty or thirty people about as fast as a criminal with a gun. Terrorism is entirely unstoppable, with or without guns in the mix. Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: 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. No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too. If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons permit owners have both. They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law. Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their cars is NOT armed. Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree? There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even if the guy shot is NOT gang involved. Get into a conflict with a gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot - and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you before you can get him. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbkqhp$m2$1@dont-
email.me: wrote: NO law has any effect if it has no teeth and is not enforced. Laws in the USA (and many other countries) are innefective because there is no enforcement - because there is NO public desire to fund law enforcement to the level required to enforce those laws. Yes, some, or many, of those laws are flawed and should be revoked - but even GOOD laws are to a large degree un-enforceable - and often also unevenly applied with a heavily biased hand. So your proposed solution Clare, is to create more laws and more regulation? Somehow that just does not make any sense. That's the knee-jerk response, every time something like this happens, from people whose opinions are driven by emotions instead of thought. News flash, Clare and Han: it's *already* illegal to commit murder. If someone is willing to disregard that law, what makes you think that he's going to obey *whatever* new laws you propose? This is equivalent to believing that by wishing something, you can make it happen. When four-year-olds do that, it's cute. When adults do that, it's delusional. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article ,
wrote: The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss ratios. Such policies can be purchased in Canada and the US. Can you demonstrate that they have had any effect on the illegal use of legally obtained weapons? Please cite your sources. -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:32:25 -0500, wrote: On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1 : 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. Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons. I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to carry. Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the range (sport/competition). If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours. That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were properly secured and stored. The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss ratios. You say the above, but what you mean is "I don't like guns and will try to make them impossibly expensive to own." Since insurance of that type will cost treble the price of the gun, none will be bought in the future should that happen. But what happens when the bad guys (who don't pay attention to the laws) come to rob, rape, or burgle you and your neighbors? They'll be the only ones with guns. I'm curious as to what insurance company would offer a liability policy against illegal use of personal property. I can't even get homeowners insurance with that kind of coverage! For legal liability, though, one can purchase a 5 million policy for $10/year here in Canada. I'm sure they exist in the US as well. Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance): "The policy offered by the National Firearms Association covers an individual or club for $5,000,000.00 in liability coverage. This is NOT an aggregate amount. It is $5,000,000.00 in Liability Insurance for any claim. Each individual, or each individual member of an NFA insured club, is covered for: - Legal hunting activities - Legal bowhunting activities - Legal range shooting activities - Legal range archery activities - Legal fishing activities - Legal re-enactment activities Anywhere in the World! -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Han
wrote: Selling these types of weapons comes with the responsibility to know who you are selling them too. Or are you going to give drug pushers a pass, because it is really the users who are the criminals? So GM, Ford, etc, are actually responsible, legally, when someone drives a vehicle while impaired? Is the grocery store responsible for harm you cause by giving seafood you bought there to someone with an allergy? Is the garden canter responsible if someone eats the castor plant beans in my garden and gets sick, because I bought the seedling from them? Your argument is absurd. What color is the sky in YOUR world? -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:34:53 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: 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. No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too. If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons permit owners have both. They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law. Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their cars is NOT armed. Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree? There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even Oh, yeah? In what movie? g Sheesh... if the guy shot is NOT gang involved. Get into a conflict with a gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot - and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you before you can get him. True, but would you rather be armed during that conflict or completely disarmed? Any sane person would rather be armed. It gives them a chance at life. Of course, even an armed sane person would go around any situation like that if they saw it in time. Avoidance is always much better than knowingly walking into an ambush. -- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: For legal liability, though, one can purchase a 5 million policy for $10/year here in Canada. I'm sure they exist in the US as well. Business insurance has cost me between $750 and $1,200 per year for half a million liability, and that's with zero claims against it. They want to double it if I do roofing or framing. You have it lucky up there in Canuckistan. Hell, our ins guys want almost $10 for a zeroxed copy of our own policy. ;) That's just for legal shooting, Larry, through the firearms owners association up here. Your business insurance costs are about the same as mine. -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: Do you want to enforce a costly added "drunk insurance" to every vehicle driver's policy, because some people drive drunk? Liability insurance for rocks, sticks, ball bats, screwdrivers, vases, wrenches, and bricks? (each of these have been used to kill many people) Where do you stop? DC units. Because of the sawdust explosion epidemic, y'know. -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St. Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes. Mostly through Mohawk reserves. -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Larry Jaques wrote in
: On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1 @dont-email.me: 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. Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons. OK, why, specifically, would liability insurance be necessary and how would it be used? Why are you offering this added billions of dollars of windfall to the insurance companies and why do you wish to thrust it upon so many law-abiding citizens against their will? I see a need for liability insurance for the chance that one's weapon is stolen from an (un)protected area. People make mistakes and have to face the consequences. Insurance would be good. The analogy is your home and car. Even if it is really not your fault, someone may fall on your property and in the current system of liability, you still may be found at least partially at fault. Moreover, a requirement for insurance would leave another paper trail. (Apparently, a neighbor bought the guns for Spengler, totally illegally, and now she will have to face the music). Liability insurance would present an added hurdle. I know, what about the millions of responsible and legal owners? That is then the price to be paid to have those guns available. Several hundreds of millions of weapons are handled every year without incident. Why would you change that? Just because you don't like guns? How would it protect against misuse by those few who do? Remember, only the law-abiding folks would be forced to buy insurance. None of the criminals would have it or get it. How would it change anything or stop crime? Answer: It would not and could not. The current laws and rules are too darn porous. If you and other responsible owners can make the few who act irreponsibly now to change their ways, we can relax the rules again. Right now the many good people will have to suffer for the few irresponsible ones. It is not fair to have kids and firefighters lose their lives just so a bunch of gun lovers can have their way without restraint. I believe in teaching all children to swim at an early age so they never have the chance to drown. I'd add weapons handling to that training, for people of all ages, if I were in charge. When I was 8, my mother took my younger sister and me to the next bigger city to learn swimming. At least 1/2 hour on a crowded bus eaxh way (we didn't have a car). That was how important it was to my parents, and that is exactly how I feel about it today. I also was told not to go some places near our town, because they had been used as practice ranges by the German occupiers, and unexploded stuff was still being found then (and even now, occasionally). Perhaps in the US it is good policy to teach the proper handling of firearms. It was a sought after thing in boy scout camps in the 70's and 80's (I believe) until premiums for liability insurance got too much for the troops. I have no idea how that is now. Especially for the cops who keep shooting innocent bystanders. Why aren't you lamenting over (and vocal activist against) that instead of trying to bankrupt us law-abiding citizens who never shoot anyone, Han? I lament that but luckily it doesn't happen all that often, though such incidents are not rare enough. If people can afford thousands of dollars to purchase the weapons and the ammunition, they should be able to afford the insurance. BTW, where are you getting your information which points you in this direction, anyway? That needs to be looked into, for all our sakes. I read, Larry, and I make up my own opinions as well. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:281220121535143685%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca: In article , Han wrote: Selling these types of weapons comes with the responsibility to know who you are selling them too. Or are you going to give drug pushers a pass, because it is really the users who are the criminals? So GM, Ford, etc, are actually responsible, legally, when someone drives a vehicle while impaired? Is the grocery store responsible for harm you cause by giving seafood you bought there to someone with an allergy? Is the garden canter responsible if someone eats the castor plant beans in my garden and gets sick, because I bought the seedling from them? Your argument is absurd. What color is the sky in YOUR world? I guess anything can and will be misinterpreted. Sorry I wasn't more clear. If I legally were to buy a firearm, and it was stolen from me while not in a well-locked safe of some kind (like when I left it on the table and left the door open to get a gallon of milk), then I should be held responsible for leaving an attractive nuisance. I believe that is some kind of legal doctrine under which I can be held responsible for someone's injuries when he sees my motorcycle on my preperty, tries to "borrow" it and it falls on him. If a kid eats your castor beans (which were unfenced next to the public road) and gets sick badly, then you might indeed be liable. I think that if I had the weapon in a well-locked safe, and the thief had to go to a lot of trouble (breaking and entering, forcing open a safe, etc) then I would be less liable. I agree that these things might be absurd in many if not most people's views, however ask your insurance agent and lawyer about it. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Larry Jaques wrote in
: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-empirestate-p olice-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827 ALL bystanders wounded by police. Did you look into the situation details? Of course there was an investigation whose bullets hit whom. On crowded sidewalk like that it was impossible not to hurt bystanders. The argument you use is a misuse of facts. Could the police perhaps have handled the situation differently? Maybe. However, their duty is to prevent harm to citizens, and here was an armed guy who had just cold-bloodedly shot to kil a former colleague. In the officers' opinion they had to get him fast. Then the guy raised a gun and tried to shoot the police. I am unsure whether or not police are now being trained to get a guy like that differently, because there was much critique of their ways at the time, although the police officials were defending the tactics. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote in :
I see a need for liability insurance for the chance that one's weapon is stolen from an (un)protected area. People make mistakes and have to face the consequences. Insurance would be good. The analogy is your home and car. OK, let's explore the car analogy a bit. Suppose someone steals your car. Your automobile liability insurance DOES NOT cover whatever damage the thief might do with, or using, the car. And you are not liable for what the thief does. The THIEF is. Even if your car is unlocked. Even if you left the keys in it. Even if you left the engine running. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Han wrote:
I agree that these things might be absurd in many if not most people's views, however ask your insurance agent and lawyer about it. Not a bad idea, but a better idea would be for you to provide evidence that this liability really exists. Perhaps you could provide insurance industry documents that outline the policy holder's liability in situations like this, or case evidence from a lawyer that supports your claim. It's your assertion, so you should provide the backup for it. -- -Mike- |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article , Han
wrote: I see a need for liability insurance for the chance that one's weapon is stolen from an (un)protected area. People make mistakes and have to face the consequences. Insurance would be good. Or juries could ruin gun owners in lawsuits... Has that happened? Why or why not? -- Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 29 Dec 2012 01:07:01 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1 @dont-email.me: 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. Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons. OK, why, specifically, would liability insurance be necessary and how would it be used? Why are you offering this added billions of dollars of windfall to the insurance companies and why do you wish to thrust it upon so many law-abiding citizens against their will? I see a need for liability insurance for the chance that one's weapon is stolen from an (un)protected area. People make mistakes and have to face the consequences. Insurance would be good. The analogy is your home and car. Even if it is really not your fault, someone may fall on your property and in the current system of liability, you still may be found at least partially at fault. Moreover, a requirement for insurance would leave another paper trail. Huh? Bureaucracy reduces crime? (Apparently, a neighbor bought the guns for Spengler, totally illegally, and now she will have to face the music). Right. Buying a gun for another person is illegal and she is a criminal. She should be punished for it as an accessory to murder. Nuke the bitz. Liability insurance would present an added hurdle. I know, what about the millions of responsible and legal owners? That is then the price to be paid to have those guns available. Again, why punish the good for what the bad guys do? It changes absolutely nothing as far as crimes being committed. You're simply punishing us for liking guns. That's not right. Several hundreds of millions of weapons are handled every year without incident. Why would you change that? Just because you don't like guns? How would it protect against misuse by those few who do? Remember, only the law-abiding folks would be forced to buy insurance. None of the criminals would have it or get it. How would it change anything or stop crime? Answer: It would not and could not. The current laws and rules are too darn porous. If you and other responsible owners can make the few who act irreponsibly now to change their ways, we can relax the rules again. Right now the many good people will have to suffer for the few irresponsible ones. It is not That's because the Left won't let the Right punish the bad guys. They seem to think that vigilante action is bad and criminals are good. shrug fair to have kids and firefighters lose their lives just so a bunch of gun lovers can have their way without restraint. That's not at all what happened and you know it, Han. If you want someone to blame, blame yourselves. Your ACLU created the atmosphere to let the crazies on the loose. This is what they do when not being properly treated with chemicals to balance their moods. And if this is "without restraint", I'd hate to see what you considered a well regulated atmosphere. I believe in teaching all children to swim at an early age so they never have the chance to drown. I'd add weapons handling to that training, for people of all ages, if I were in charge. When I was 8, my mother took my younger sister and me to the next bigger city to learn swimming. At least 1/2 hour on a crowded bus eaxh way (we didn't have a car). That was how important it was to my parents, and that is exactly how I feel about it today. I also was told not to go some places near our town, because they had been used as practice ranges by the German occupiers, and unexploded stuff was still being found then (and even now, occasionally). Perhaps in the US it is good policy to teach the proper handling of firearms. It was a sought after thing in boy scout camps in the 70's and 80's (I believe) until premiums for liability insurance got too much for the troops. I have no idea how that is now. Worse. Ditto auto, wood, and metal shops for kids nowadays. The bloody attorneys ruined it for all of us. Things which made our country strong are now regulated out. RIP U.S.A. Especially for the cops who keep shooting innocent bystanders. Why aren't you lamenting over (and vocal activist against) that instead of trying to bankrupt us law-abiding citizens who never shoot anyone, Han? I lament that but luckily it doesn't happen all that often, though such incidents are not rare enough. If people can afford thousands of dollars to purchase the weapons and the ammunition, they should be able to afford the insurance. Oh, come on. Most people don't have thousands to throw into gun collections. Most of us have only one or two guns with investments less than $500 over a period of years. Please don't think that the typical gun owner is a rich SOB, because most aren't. (my pistol cost $240, and I saved up for it.) It's just the media which keeps pushing that picture around, regardless of the truth. Some hunters spend thousands on expeditions, but that takes the place of their regular vacation. Guns are their hobby, so the hobby money goes into that instead of RC airplanes, stamp collections, woodworking tools, etc. BTW, where are you getting your information which points you in this direction, anyway? That needs to be looked into, for all our sakes. I read, Larry, and I make up my own opinions as well. What are you reading which skews you toward that direction? I think it's dangerous, whatever it is. You want to push extravagant tolls on folks, ruining the lives of people who are doing nothing illegal and are harming nobody. It's unfair as hell, and totally unfounded. -- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On 29 Dec 2012 01:29:58 GMT, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-empirestate-p olice-idUSBRE87Q04X20120827 ALL bystanders wounded by police. Did you look into the situation details? Of course there was an investigation whose bullets hit whom. On crowded sidewalk like that it was impossible not to hurt bystanders. The argument you use is a misuse of facts. Huh? The police missed the guy and hit others instead. How am I misuing facts when I'm talking about the poor training of the police? Could the police perhaps have handled the situation differently? Maybe. However, their duty is to prevent harm to citizens, and here was an armed guy who had just cold-bloodedly shot to kil a former colleague. In the officers' opinion they had to get him fast. Then the guy raised a gun and tried to shoot the police. I am unsure whether or not police are now being trained to get a guy like that differently, because there was much critique of their ways at the time, although the police officials were defending the tactics. Look at the statistics about cops vs. civilian shootings. Cops hit more bystanders almost every time because their skills are not good. Didn't someone just post a link to that stat last week? (or was that a different newsgroup?) http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/spe...tatistics.html or http://tinyurl.com/c6javz3 shows a 34% hit rate. That's two thirds of police bullets going wild. I call that totally unacceptable. In my book, everyone needs more training on how to properly shoot a gun. And everyone needs to spend more time practicing, myself included. Cops should have a lot of close quarters tactical training that they're evidently not getting. "It costs too much money." their chiefs say. Civilian deaths are a direct result of that decision, and I think that's criminal in itself. Call your police chief and ask if he thinks your guys in blue are getting enough training, and if not, why not. -- Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:58:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: Cops should have a lot of close quarters tactical training that they're evidently not getting. "It costs too much money." their chiefs say. Civilian deaths are a direct result of that decision, and I think that's criminal in itself. Call your police chief and ask if he thinks your guys in blue are getting enough training, and if not, why not. Check your facts. It is NOT the cheifs who say it costs too much. It's the tax payers. You want your cops properly trained, stop bitching about increased taxes. Municipal taxes pay for your local LEO. State taxes pay for your state police.Federal taxes pay for your federal law enforcement, and provide transfer payments to your states and municipalities. Demanding zero tax increases gets you exactly what you are willing to pay for. Same goes for "controlling" mental illness and the mentally ill and dangerous. You need health care that is affordable to take care of these people, and facilities to safely house those that cannot be controlled, and the will to do it. ALL cost taxpayer money. If you are going to incarserate criminals instead of turning them back onto the street it is going to cost a whole lot more. Cheaper over-all to eliminate the poverty at the root of much of American crime. But your two levels of government keep thowing **** at each other driving the country closer and closer to the cliff - because they think they are doing what their electoratr demands. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
In article ,
says... On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: 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. No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too. If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons permit owners have both. They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law. I think that a civilian using a firearm in self defense should be held to the same standard as a cop who does so. That is to say a board of his buddies should review the shooting and if they decide that it was "righteous" then he's off the hook. Either that or every time a cop shoots somebody let a jury decided whether he was justified. Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their cars is NOT armed. Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree? There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even if the guy shot is NOT gang involved. There are? Please state your source. Get into a conflict with a gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot - and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you before you can get him. Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will not be shot. You claim that being shot is a likely outcome of being armed and showing a weapon, state your source. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Talk about inane... why on earth would you think we'd need extra law enforcement to deal with *fewer* crimes? Nobody would be investigating drug traffickers any more, or drug users. Drug addicts who need a fix are frequently unable to control their desire to get that next hit. What happens after they run out of money buying these legalized drugs? ~ Same as now. Cheat, steal, rob to get the money for their drug habit. Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people. Instead of sitting on your thumb rotating Miller, why don't you have a look at the stats for oxycontin, percoset and oxy condone? Those pain killers are legal now and yet they sell on the street for much more than the drug store prescription. Explain to me how it would be different if they were legalized and marketed. There would still be a black market and a trail of destroyed lives. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:35:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance): Do you want to know WHY that insurance is so cheap up here? It's because there are so few gun owners and guns are significantly more controlled than down in the US. That means the chance of something happening on a gun range is much less. If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US, insurance rates would be much higher. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:42:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote: Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St. Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes. You're full of crap. Some maybe, but certainly not in the numbers your feeble mind apparently likes to imagine. If you're going to come up with this bull****, at least post some verifiable stats to back it up. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:54:27 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Mostly through Mohawk reserves. There's native Americans down your way too. I guess our native Canadians are all bands of criminals while your native Americans are docile citizens. As usual Balderstone, you're full of crap. Unverifiable crap. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Dave wrote in
: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller Talk about inane... why on earth would you think we'd need extra law enforcement to deal with *fewer* crimes? Nobody would be investigating drug traffickers any more, or drug users. Drug addicts who need a fix are frequently unable to control their desire to get that next hit. What happens after they run out of money buying these legalized drugs? ~ Same as now. Cheat, steal, rob to get the money for their drug habit. Difference is that legalization will lower the price, thus making these outcomes less likely, and less drastic. Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people. No argument there at all. Instead of sitting on your thumb rotating Miller, Are you able to have a rational discussion without personally insulting those who disagree with you? why don't you have a look at the stats for oxycontin, percoset and oxy condone? Those pain killers are legal now and yet they sell on the street for much more than the drug store prescription. Ya think the difference in price might be due to it being illegal to buy them *without* a prescription? Explain to me how it would be different if they were legalized and marketed. There would still be a black market and a trail of destroyed lives. They'd be cheaper. Sure, there would still be a black market, just like there still is in alcohol and tobacco, but it would -- like alcohol and tobacco -- be a much smaller black market than exists now when they are banned, and its destructive effects would be correspondingly smaller. Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does not and cannot work: in a free market, if there is a demand for a product or service, someone will provide a supply. The ONLY way to stop the drug problem is to address the demand side, by regarding it as a public health problem instead of a criminal justice problem. Instead of putting people in jail for the "crime" of getting stoned in private, we need to address the social conditions that cause them to prefer getting stoned to a normal, un-stoned daily life. What those social conditions are, and how they should be corrected, is a subject for another discussion. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
Dave wrote in news:a96td85pab7lsmqfpdvprvbika71ulqbij@
4ax.com: On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:26 -0500, wrote: Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few. In fact, it's EXACTLY the opposite. A significant amount of guns in Canada come from the US. I'm curious -- do you have a cite for that? I thought that Canada had pretty strict controls over importing firearms. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"J. Clarke" wrote in message in.local... Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will not be shot. That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in America when he was shot... Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them either. This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something, regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his grandmother, "The masses is asses." One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be coming up for debate: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons Of particular interest is this section: a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: a.. Background check of owner and any transferee; b.. Type and serial number of the firearm; c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration. What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial... John |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:21:42 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:14:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller wrote: Han wrote in : Gang killings very often involve innocent bystanders. These aren't sniper- like, but wild shooyouts from passing cars, rooftops, or just plain on crowded streets. Too true. The solution to that problem, though, isn't to ban firearms (since the criminals will have them anyway) -- it's to dry up the funding source for the street gangs, by legalizing drugs. Seriously. Legalizing drugs may make a small dent in their funding. Legalize prostitution and you will dry up another SIGNIFICANT source of gang revenue - if by legalizing it you can guarantee that NOBODY will be fighting over the profits/control of the trade. Legalizing tobacco has not eliminated the trade in illicit (untaxed) tobacco, Only because the taxes on tobacco have been raised to a ludicrous level in a stupid and misguided effort at a back-door ban. and the criminal element involvement in it's production, impoortation, and distribution. So how significant is this involvement by a "criminal element"? Please state your source. Same can be said for booze. Still lots of bootlegging going on, and smuggling/sale of untaxed liquor. Remove the profits from drugs and the criminal element / gangs will just find something more attractive to make their money on - and continue killing over it. "Lots"? I'd like to see your source on that. Millions of dollars of "untaxed liquor" is produced in the Kentukee/Tennesee /Virginia/North Carolina backwoods every year. And the numbers are going up, not down, dispite law enforcement efforts. Real big business in places like Rocky Mount. ANd that does not even start to touch the extent of it. Thousands of gallons of liquor are smuggled into the USA (and Canada) every year, but compared to the untaxed cigarette business, it is small potatoes. |
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:29:46 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:42:10 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote: Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St. Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes. You're full of crap. Some maybe, but certainly not in the numbers your feeble mind apparently likes to imagine. If you're going to come up with this bull****, at least post some verifiable stats to back it up. Correct. WAY more illegal **** coming north across the border from the USA than going south from Canada. Pot going south from BC? You bet. But more guns, liquor, and hard drugs coming north.. More illegal immigrants coming into Canada through the USA than the other direction as well. Why would anyone come through Canada to get to the states, when they can get welfare and health care in Canada that puts the USA to shame????? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter