On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:26:46 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Share with us your plan, regulation, law, whatever that will make you
feel comfortable with the ease (or lack thereof) of we poor commoners to
obtain a gun.

What should a law abiding citizen - or any citizen for that matter -
have to go through to be able to possess a gun?

I only have my Canadian experience of previously owning firearms when
I was a member of a local gun club. I (mostly) subscribe to the tenets
of what my firearms license demanded.

The requirements between owning a rifle and owning a hand gun were
different and still are. To own a hand gun (the two I owned were a .22
Browning Challenger and a Colt .45) I had to belong to a gun club. I
had to go through instruction and testing which took several weeks.

Once I passed all that and was approved, then I had to get an F.A.C.
(firearms acquisition certificate). I also had to get a transport
permit. (not carry permit, transport permit). Carrying was and still
is extremely illegal.

By owning a hand gun, the police could come by at any time (without a
warrant) and demand to see my guns, first to confirm that they were
there and second to confirm that they were responsibly stored.
Although, there was not one inspection in the ten or so years that I
was target shooting.

Which "citizens" should be barred from possessing a gun, PERIOD?

Just my opinion of course, but I'd say criminals with a conviction for
certain types of crimes. People who have been determined to have
certain mental aberrations.

In the end, I've always felt that it should be difficult (not
impossible) to obtain a gun or rifle. But then, I am a Canadian. I
might well feel differently in the US, but that also leads me to ask.
Would I want to live in a place where I was worried enough about my
safety to want a firearm on hand at all times?

The answer to that is Maybe. I suspect that many in the US are so
comfortable having guns around and in their lives, that it's just
second nature. Guess there's nothing much wrong with that, but then
there's those damned stats that appear to say that gun violence is
higher in the US than many other countries, certainly more that CA.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:32 -0500, wrote:
Your logic, well, isn't. Does Canada have the gang-bangers of
Chicago?

Don't know much about Chicago gang-bangers so can't comment, but we
certainly have gangs in Canada and in Toronto where I live. They're
just as prone to kill each other and bystanders as any other gang.
That truth is evidenced by a number gang killings in the 2012 year.
Easy to confirm by doing a news search.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:29:51 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:50:32 -0500, wrote:
Your logic, well, isn't. Does Canada have the gang-bangers of
Chicago?

Don't know much about Chicago gang-bangers so can't comment, but we
certainly have gangs in Canada and in Toronto where I live. They're
just as prone to kill each other and bystanders as any other gang.
That truth is evidenced by a number gang killings in the 2012 year.
Easy to confirm by doing a news search.

Obviously not as bad as Chicago; more than 500 deaths this year alone.
That's in a city where guns are *already* illegal.

Dave wrote in
:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:27:25 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Difference is that legalization will lower the price, thus
making these outcomes less likely, and less drastic.

Drug addiction has a direct effect on the brain an behaviour. Do
you actually believe that an initially lower cost will change
that. All it will do is to create more drug addicts and more
problems for society. And, you're fooling yourself if you think
a lower cost will lessen anything. Just like cigarettes, a black
market will grow feed the increased need for drugs.

Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people.
No argument there at all.

So why on earth would you advocate free market drugs. Do you
think for even one minute that destroyed homes, lives and people
won't have a cost effect on the population?

It's having that cost *now* -- exacerbated by the illegality.

Are you able to have a rational discussion without personally
insulting those who disagree with you?

Not when I see such absolutely ridiculous statements to the
effect of legalizing drugs.

Then you need to grow up.

Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that crystal
meth users are going to act rationally if crystal meth becomes
legal.

Where on earth did you get that notion?


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.

Maybe not, but legalizing drugs as a means to control it is
absolutely absurd. Find another method to control the drug
market.

Legalize them, tax them, use the tax revenues to fund treatment
programs.

Again, I say that drug addiction has a direct effect on brains
and behaviour. The horrendous increase in drug addicts due to
easy access would only result in social catastrophe.

And the status quo has *not* had that result? What color is the
sky on your planet?

wrote in
news
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

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.
We do have. But border enforcement is spotty, and we have a
pretty
wide-open border between the northwestern states and the prairie
provinces - as well as a large "maritime" boarder bounded by the
great lakes. LEGAL imports of firearms are strictly enforced. -
and limited. Illegal imports from the USA are MUCH easier than
imports from europe or asia.
Legan gun POSESSION in Canada is quite restricted and controlled
- so where are all these illegal weapons coming FROM Canada
coming from???????

Overseas, perhaps, I don't know -- you claimed they're coming from
the US and I asked you for a cite for that.

Interesting that you haven't provided one.

wrote in
:

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.

I said I'd like to see your source for that. Not more unsupported
assertions.

So -- got a source for that one too?

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.

Again -- what is your source for all this?

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:11:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Overseas, perhaps, I don't know -- you claimed they're coming from
the US and I asked you for a cite for that.

Interesting that you haven't provided one.

Even more interesting is your apparent lack of common sense when it
comes to guns. I can only guess that you're doing it on purpose just
to **** disturb.

DAGS on Canadian gun manufacturers and I came up with SIX. DAGS on US
gun manufacturers and I came up with SEVERAL HUNDRED. Verily, it's
simple common sense that the VAST bulk of illegal guns in Canada are
coming across the border from the USA, the longest international
border in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...rers_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...nited_Stat es

As to cites on cross border guns.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/cook.pdf
http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports...us_2007_e.html
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/repo.../index-eng.htm

Dave wrote in newsqe5e85kbpngdbbhnc2bklga59nmmne9h5@
4ax.com:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:11:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Overseas, perhaps, I don't know -- you claimed they're coming from
the US and I asked you for a cite for that.

Interesting that you haven't provided one.

Even more interesting is your apparent lack of common sense when it
comes to guns. I can only guess that you're doing it on purpose just
to **** disturb.

And once again, you display your inability to have a fact-based discussion without personal
insults.

It's time to put you back in the killfile. Grow up, Davie.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:38 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Dave
wrote:

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.

Down my way?

You're north of Saskatoon?


As usual Balderstone, you're full of crap. Unverifiable crap.

This is entirely verifiable. Do a Google search on "Mohawk smuggling".

Which media reports do you trust? CBC? NY Times? Montreal Gazette?
National Post? Wikipedia? Ottawa Citizen?

They are all there in the Google results.

I ain't the one full of crap...
And all the Mohawks are Canadian, eh?? The "mohawk warriors"
involved in a lot of the "insurrections" up here are identified as
from the USA (New York) - and ORIGINALLY the mohawk were from what is
now New York State - they left as United Empire Loyalists - in large
part.

Why are you changing the subject?

Never mind... that's rhetorical.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

And once again, you display your inability to have a fact-based discussion without personal
insults.

It's time to put you back in the killfile. Grow up, Davie.


Right!!! I posted a number of cites and links in the last message and
you're using the insult card to ignore them.

Sad fact is that most everybody here knows the little games you play
every time you get into a discussion.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:34:36 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Oh, good, you didn't leave yet. I was waiting for the answer to my
question. Remember yesterday morning when? No games, no deflection, no
changing the subject, just answers

I replied to your questions, all of them. It's not my fault you missed
the post. Search back 12 messages in this thread and read my reply.
Then, you can apologize for missing what I wrote.

On 1/1/2013 11:02 AM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:34:36 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Oh, good, you didn't leave yet. I was waiting for the answer to my
question. Remember yesterday morning when? No games, no deflection, no
changing the subject, just answers

I replied to your questions, all of them. It's not my fault you missed
the post. Search back 12 messages in this thread and read my reply.
Then, you can apologize for missing what I wrote.


Perhaps you post on this thread was deleted from the server. I can't
seem to find it. Whatever... I don't see it listed.

The 12th post back from your response, above, was authored by you but it
was posted ~ 6 hours and 20 minutes prior to my original question and read:

"Then, how do you explain this asshole?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-the-world/
http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control...al-comparison/

In EVERY link I found that listed gun murders by country, the USA had
at least twice the number of killings per 100,000 citizens compared
to Canada.

Sure, there's always going to be some sites with a personal agenda
that skew the stats, but all of them?

It's douche bags like you what are just too damned ignorant to see the
truth staring them in the face."

If this was it, and I doubt that it was, it was hardly responsive to my
question. Care to repost it? If my usenet server screwed up, I
apologize. If it didn't, I'm still waiting. Anyone else confirm that
he posted a meaningful response to this as opposed to some verbal vomit?

On 01/01/2013 10:32 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 1/1/2013 11:02 AM, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:34:36 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Oh, good, you didn't leave yet. I was waiting for the answer to my
question. Remember yesterday morning when? No games, no deflection, no
changing the subject, just answers

I replied to your questions, all of them. It's not my fault you missed
the post. Search back 12 messages in this thread and read my reply.
Then, you can apologize for missing what I wrote.


Perhaps you post on this thread was deleted from the server. I can't
seem to find it. Whatever... I don't see it listed.

The 12th post back from your response, above, was authored by you but it
was posted ~ 6 hours and 20 minutes prior to my original question and read:

"Then, how do you explain this asshole?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-the-world/

http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control...al-comparison/

In EVERY link I found that listed gun murders by country, the USA had
at least twice the number of killings per 100,000 citizens compared
to Canada.

Sure, there's always going to be some sites with a personal agenda
that skew the stats, but all of them?

It's douche bags like you what are just too damned ignorant to see the
truth staring them in the face."

If this was it, and I doubt that it was, it was hardly responsive to my
question. Care to repost it? If my usenet server screwed up, I
apologize. If it didn't, I'm still waiting. Anyone else confirm that
he posted a meaningful response to this as opposed to some verbal vomit?

It's not on astraweb.


--
"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

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:32:55 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
If this was it, and I doubt that it was, it was hardly responsive to my
question. Care to repost it? If my usenet server screwed up, I
apologize. If it didn't, I'm still waiting. Anyone else confirm that
he posted a meaningful response to this as opposed to some verbal vomit?

Here's the reply I posted.
==========================
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:26:46 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Share with us your plan, regulation, law, whatever that will make you
feel comfortable with the ease (or lack thereof) of we poor commoners to
obtain a gun.

What should a law abiding citizen - or any citizen for that matter -
have to go through to be able to possess a gun?

I only have my Canadian experience of previously owning firearms when
I was a member of a local gun club. I (mostly) subscribe to the tenets
of what my firearms license demanded.

The requirements between owning a rifle and owning a hand gun were
different and still are. To own a hand gun (the two I owned were a .22
Browning Challenger and a Colt .45) I had to belong to a gun club. I
had to go through instruction and testing which took several weeks.

Once I passed all that and was approved, then I had to get an F.A.C.
(firearms acquisition certificate). I also had to get a transport
permit. (not carry permit, transport permit). Carrying was and still
is extremely illegal.

By owning a hand gun, the police could come by at any time (without a
warrant) and demand to see my guns, first to confirm that they were
there and second to confirm that they were responsibly stored.
Although, there was not one inspection in the ten or so years that I
was target shooting.

Which "citizens" should be barred from possessing a gun, PERIOD?

Just my opinion of course, but I'd say criminals with a conviction for
certain types of crimes. People who have been determined to have
certain mental aberrations.

In the end, I've always felt that it should be difficult (not
impossible) to obtain a gun or rifle. But then, I am a Canadian. I
might well feel differently in the US, but that also leads me to ask.
Would I want to live in a place where I was worried enough about my
safety to want a firearm on hand at all times?

The answer to that is Maybe. I suspect that many in the US are so
comfortable having guns around and in their lives, that it's just
second nature. Guess there's nothing much wrong with that, but then
there's those damned stats that appear to say that gun violence is
higher in the US than many other countries, certainly more that CA.

On 1/1/2013 11:49 AM, Dave wrote:

Okay, usenetmonster (my server) didn't get it and neither did Astraweb
per Doug. We're both victims of the black hole it seems. Moving on...

Here's the reply I posted.
==========================
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:26:46 -0600, Unquestionably Confused
Share with us your plan, regulation, law, whatever that will make you
feel comfortable with the ease (or lack thereof) of we poor commoners to
obtain a gun.

What should a law abiding citizen - or any citizen for that matter -
have to go through to be able to possess a gun?

I only have my Canadian experience of previously owning firearms when
I was a member of a local gun club. I (mostly) subscribe to the tenets
of what my firearms license demanded.

The requirements between owning a rifle and owning a hand gun were
different and still are. To own a hand gun (the two I owned were a .22
Browning Challenger and a Colt .45) I had to belong to a gun club. I
had to go through instruction and testing which took several weeks.

Once I passed all that and was approved, then I had to get an F.A.C.
(firearms acquisition certificate). I also had to get a transport
permit. (not carry permit, transport permit). Carrying was and still
is extremely illegal.

Well... How about this? I'm located in Illinois outside of Chicago.
Since about 1967 or so in order to own, possess or buy a firearm or
ammunition of ANY kind (from .22 plinker through .44mag or whatever) I
had to apply for and receive a Firearm Owner's Identification Card
issued by the state police. Obtained after a background check that
included state police ident files and FBI records. I also had to swear
that I was not a habitual drunkard or mentally ill and had not been
treated as an inpatient for that sort of thing.

Federally there are several strictures in place as well. If you are
convicted of a felony - ANY felony - that serves as a lifetime ban
against possession, use, purchase of firearms. Slap your wife or whip
your kid because he set fire to your sports car? That's domestic
violence and it's adios to your right to own, possess, buy, use a
firearm - ANY FIREARM. Sadly, there are not a few unemployed former law
enforcement officers who thought maybe they'd be exempt.

With the mental health thing, that admittedly was kind of an honor
system. You swear you weren't locked up in a padded cell but there was
no way to really check. Legislation changed and made that possible and
it is now screened against health records.

I'm old enough to have skated by on the firearms training associated
with hunting, etc. but as a former LEO, I have been trained.



By owning a hand gun, the police could come by at any time (without a
warrant) and demand to see my guns, first to confirm that they were
there and second to confirm that they were responsibly stored.
Although, there was not one inspection in the ten or so years that I
was target shooting.

Well, you got me there. That warrantless search thing will NEVER fly in
this country and shouldn't. Pass the law to establish the proper thing
to do and react when they don't. Don't presume that the law will be
violated by the good people as an excuse to intrude? If Canada should
happen to ban condoms, do you think the authorities should have the
right to enter your home at O dark thirty, lay a cold Maglite on your
butt cheeks and ask you "pull out for a moment so we can see what you
have there?"


Which "citizens" should be barred from possessing a gun, PERIOD?

Just my opinion of course, but I'd say criminals with a conviction for
certain types of crimes. People who have been determined to have
certain mental aberrations.

Agreed and see above.


In the end, I've always felt that it should be difficult (not
impossible) to obtain a gun or rifle. But then, I am a Canadian. I
might well feel differently in the US, but that also leads me to ask.
Would I want to live in a place where I was worried enough about my
safety to want a firearm on hand at all times?

When seconds count, the police are just minutes (if you are EXTREMELY
lucky) away. My wife has no particular problem with guns (thank God)
but wasn't and isn't a rabid concealed carry proponent. Even so,
driving through areas of rural Arizona, along old Route 66 in the mining
country where individualists are living by themselves maybe ten or
fifteen miles away from the nearest other living person and maybe twenty
to thirty miles from some town that MIGHT have a gas station, she really
saw the need.

The answer to that is Maybe. I suspect that many in the US are so
comfortable having guns around and in their lives, that it's just
second nature. Guess there's nothing much wrong with that, but then
there's those damned stats that appear to say that gun violence is
higher in the US than many other countries, certainly more that CA.

There ARE a lot of gun crimes. No argument. They tend to follow the
population trends as to the number of incidents as well. Big cities,
lots of people, lots of nasty people, lots of crime. The other thing
that they have is lots of laws preventing gun possession.

I am close to Chicago which has some of the toughest and insane gun laws
in the world. Until recent Supreme Court decisions Chicago had pretty
much a de facto gun ban. Seen how that's working out? Just over 500
homicides for 2012 as the big ball fell in Times Square. Come visit the
city and stroll the Magnificent Mile of Michigan Avenue (a gem, BTW) and
get mugged by marauding gangs of young criminals. They are empowered by
the fact that Chicago is still "gun free", If you're lucky they will
not shoot or stab you. This in the last state of the union to prohibit
concealed carry by properly vetted citizens.

Their solution? Take away the guns that they think they can get from
the honest citizens everywhere while continuing to ignore the real
problem or point to the false hope that taking guns from John Q Public
living 100 miles outside the city will prevent the next 500 shootings in
the city of Chicago. What are the chances?

Back to the laws and gun violence. An objective review of the
statistics, news accounts, incident reports will show that prohibition
against guns does relatively little to prevent their illegal use in this
country. To the contrary, those areas of less dense population, where
coincidentally there seems to be less anti-gun legislation which, of
course, means more guns in the hands of the people, and we see less
crime with or without guns. Criminals do not want a level playing
field. Why do we want to tilt the odds so lopsided in their favor.

Gun crimes have dropped in those areas where CCW has been approved. Has
it stopped all gun crimes? Hell no, only God can do that by vaporized
EVERY SINGLE GUN AND PIECE OF AMMUNITION IN EXISTENCE in one fell swoop.
If/when that happens I will be glad to see my guns disappear but it won't.

Shall we now talk about the assault weapons ban and the urgent need to
include bayonet lugs as one of the criteria? Let's see if we can find
some stats on how many drive-by bayonettings were prevented during the
former bang

Han wrote:

So responsible use
isn't universal, and when that gets extended to weapons of the
Bushmaster ilk, the consequences are rather horrible.

Collectively, I can imagine there are over 1 million man-years of
Bushmaster-ilk ownership and usage without a single horrible consequence.

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.

In England, guns are locked up at approved "gun clubs." How's that working
out for gun-related violence? Actually not very well. Not very well at all.


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.

So quit lamenting over what may have been. Time to move on. Get a weapon of
your own to protect yourself and the one's you love.


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??

There were slightly more than 500 homicides committed last year with a rifle
(of any sort). That's chump-change in the grand scale of things. Over 100
million people own rifles and you'd punish them for a piddly 500 deaths?
Outstanding!


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.


I don't believe you can. It's just something we have to accept because ALL
remedies proposed are obviously worse than the problems the purport to
solve.



Gang deaths are just to be written of?

Yes.

Suicides too?

Yes.

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.


Gun homicides are NOT, in the main, tragic. They help to improve society
overall.


Larry, we do all kinds of things to prevent falls, accidental
poisoning, traffic accidents, and so on. But we should ignore
firearms-related deaths?

Yeah, pretty much.

Come on ... And homicide by gun is easily
prevented. Get rid of the gun.

Arrant nonsense.
1. You CAN'T get rid of the gun. Americans WANT their guns. Trying to remove
280 million firearms from American society is a fool's errand. Remember the
dismal failure of prohibition? Anyway, wishing for something impossible is
evidence sufficient of a deep-seated psychological problem.

2. Further, just ATTEMPTING to get rid of guns has proven to be
counter-productive. Most recently, Australia tried it and best estimates
indicate only 7% of the gun-owning citizenry complied. England also
attempted gun removal and gun crime increased. Canada started down that
road, and after expending a significant amount* on the project, finally gave
up.

Moreover, attempting to remove guns from society may very well - in the
short run for sure - INCREASE gun homicides as we will have to be stepping
over the bodies of slain federal agents littering the sidewalks and byways.

-----------
* Over $2 billion as of 2004, 27% of the RCMP budget. This amount covers the
registration of 1.9 million Canadian firearms owners and 7.8 million
firearms. Extrapolate that to 180 million firearm owners in the U.S. and 280
million guns.

Han wrote:

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.

OH YES IT WAS.

There is a universe of laws restricting what society can do about those with
a mental illness that disposes them to violence. Everything from preventing
incarceration to the absolute secrecy of diagnosed mental disease or defect.
Virtually every single one of these laws and regulations was conceived and
promulgated by the left.

Saying the unfortunate consequences of these laws is the price we must pay
so that the people who smell funny can mope amongst normal folk unchallenged
and unregulated is identical with my observation that the few gun deaths
society experiences is the price we must pay for freedom.

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?

Again, the instances you name (except for the firefighters) ARE the
collateral damage from an ill-conceived, upstream, liberal persuasion. That
persuasion is the notion of a "gun free" zone. In EVERY case of mass killing
by firearms (4 or more killed) since 1950 has taken place in a "gun free"
zone (with ONE possible exception: the Phoenix parking-lot shooting that
involved Gabby Giffords).

On 01/01/2013 12:39 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
I am close to Chicago which has some of the toughest and insane gun laws in the world.

You are wasting your time. Gun banners cannot defend their positions with
reason. Their positions are always based on half-truths, outright lying,
and distortions. Their positions are rooted in feelgood bromides that
cannot and will not work. In the face of the strictest gun laws in the nation
(or nearly so) Chicago has the highest murder rate and what do it's fine
politicians want ... more gun laws. Nothing makes a population more docile
than to be powerless before an overweening government and an armed criminal
population simultaneously.

A more effective technique is to ignore them, buy more guns, and send more
money to the NRA.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

wrote:

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

Several surveys have shown there are between 1.8 million and 8 million
defensive uses of a firearm each year. So there's a passel of empirical
evidence. Twice over the past 15 years I've had occasion to display my
firearm, both in a Home Depot parking lot. Both involved a scruffy
individual carrying a potential weapon (one a 4' long piece of rebar and the
other a 2x2). When they continued to advance after me saying "Stop, come no
closer!", I pulled my piece. They both backed off, one even offering "Hey,
man, I just wanted to borrow a cigarette (and I intend to light it with this
here pipe)."

I count those experiences and a crime probably thwarted.


A sabre cuts both ways.

Sorry, a sabre only cuts one way. Usually. You're probably thinking of a
sword.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

The weapons Spenger used were legally produced and sold, except Spenger
illegally got his hands on them.

That is incorrect. They were legally produced, and illegally sold.

Soon we'll know how he managed to do that.

That is already known. He was not eligible to purchase them legally himself, so he had his
next-door neighbor buy them for him -- which is illegal.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top...d-with-buying-
guns-used-in-webster-shooting/

I wonder how you then will propose to prevent the same
thing from happening again.

How do you propose to prevent *any* crime? Laws do not prevent crime, they provide a
framework for dealing with it after it has already occurred.