This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite


--

-Mike-

On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite



That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.

On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite




That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.

On 12/24/2012 1:30 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite





That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.

How's those tough gun control laws working for you, Chuckie?

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 12/24/2012 01:30 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite




That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.


The gun banners know this. They are evil, not stupid. The
drumbeat for gun legislation is a path to power, which is
all the aforementioned political ooze cares about.



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

On 12/24/2012 01:45 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 01:30 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite




That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.


The gun banners know this. They are evil, not stupid. The
drumbeat for gun legislation is a path to power, which is
all the aforementioned political ooze cares about.





Oh, and they can pretty much count on the profound stupidity
of the public that cares more about bad food, bad music,
and bad movies than getting even slightly acquainted with
Reality:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/Am...Worsening.aspx

We have found the enemy and it's our neighbors ...

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:30:10 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite



That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.
We don't know yet - but good possibility those guns were legally
owned by a "law abiding citizen" from whom Spengler "liberated" them.

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite


--------------------------------------------------
When is this madness going to stop?

The system is broken.

Lew

Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite



Mike, I'm sorry to hear the news.The last 6 weeks have brought more
needless tragedy than usual... And more families left permanently
dismembered.

Bill

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:25:34 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:30:10 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite



That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.
We don't know yet - but good possibility those guns were legally
owned by a "law abiding citizen" from whom Spengler "liberated" them.

And this is more proof that the crazies will use any tool at their
disposal to do their crimes. He took a hammer to his grandmother the
last time. Well, at least he won't be back to kill anyone else. He
shot himself dead this time.

--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer

Swingman wrote in
:

On 12/24/2012 1:30 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...volunteer-fire
fighters-shot-2-dead-after-responding-to-blaze?lite





That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.

How's those tough gun control laws working for you, Chuckie?

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:30:10 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite



That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.
We don't know yet - but good possibility those guns were legally
owned by a "law abiding citizen" from whom Spengler "liberated" them.

And if that's the case how would more laws help? Or are you proposing
to have the police go door to door and search every house in the US
seizing all firearms they find?

in 1544991 20121224 195225 Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 01:45 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 01:30 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/24/2012 11:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite




That's disgusting. It does demonstrate that those gun control
laws are really working well. My guess is that the next thing you
hear is some piece of political ooze talking about how taking guns
away from non-criminals would really help.

Sigh.



Take away the guns, they bring bombs next time.


The gun banners know this. They are evil, not stupid. The
drumbeat for gun legislation is a path to power, which is
all the aforementioned political ooze cares about.





Oh, and they can pretty much count on the profound stupidity
of the public that cares more about bad food, bad music,
and bad movies than getting even slightly acquainted with
Reality:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/Am...Worsening.aspx

We have found the enemy and it's our neighbors ...

From my viewpoint (southern England) you're all mad!
Merry Christmas.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 07:48:27 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:



From my viewpoint (southern England) you're all mad!
Merry Christmas.

The UK is free of crime? How about the shooter in Scotland that took
out 16 kids a few years back? I think you have a good share of nut
cases too, going back to some of your kings.

"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.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 26 Dec 2012 02:20:56 GMT, 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.
AFAIK they ARE illegal. If they KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a
convicted fellon it is against the law. Obviously, if the licenced
dealer cannot sell it there is a good reason the buyer should not be
able to buy it. Only a rabid gun nut would resell that gun. Or a
"connected" "american entrepeneur" who would do anything for money.

Han wrote:


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.

Well, that is certainly true, but in reality most FFL's would not risk their
license and/or the penalties and hassles for even being suspected of such
behavior. Do a quick search on what kind of scrutiny an FFL is subject to
on a routine basis. For sure - there are crooks in everything, but you'll
find that this particular fear is not very real.


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.

That's kind of vague, and in fact not without some amount of suspicion since
it was a TV report. That said - NY just charged a handful of private
citizens for selling guns in a way the DA did not like, at a gun show.
Don't know what will come of this as it is just now unfolding. It was a
sting operation and no details of the operation have been released yet.
Don't hold me to this but I believe the operation took place over several
months, and something like 10 private sellers are being charged. But - like
I said, no details have been released on the charges or the accompanying
sting operation.

I have a problem with a statement like "plenty of people..." since it is
vague by itself and is only useful in taking a position without any real
supporting information. Makes good emotional fodder but nothing more.

It will pay to watch what comes of this whole thing though. I do agree that
even a private citizen should not be allowed to sell a gun to a person who
should not be able to otherwise legally buy one. Let's see how much of that
is what really took place.

--

-Mike-

On 26 Dec 2012 02:20:56 GMT, 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.

Generally, they already are, Han. All those boys on big-city side-
street alleys selling guns to their crazy friends aren't walking the
straight and narrow. And as long as our borders are wide open,
terrorists (and other illegal aliens) as well as weapons and drugs
flood over them 24/7/365.

Bloomberg is part of the problem, too.


--
Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace.
-- Robert J. Sawyer

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 22:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 26 Dec 2012 02:20:56 GMT, 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.
AFAIK they ARE illegal. If they KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a
convicted fellon it is against the law. Obviously, if the licenced
dealer cannot sell it there is a good reason the buyer should not be
able to buy it. Only a rabid gun nut would resell that gun. Or a
"connected" "american entrepeneur" who would do anything for money.

It is illegal (for a non FFL holder) to purchase a handgun with the
intention of transferring it to someone else. I couldn't buy a
handgun for my wife[*], of all fool things. She can easily use any
that are in the house.
[*] A misread of the law, AIUI.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 22:13:58 -0500, wrote:

On 26 Dec 2012 02:20:56 GMT, 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.
AFAIK they ARE illegal. If they KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a
convicted fellon it is against the law. Obviously, if the licenced
dealer cannot sell it there is a good reason the buyer should not be
able to buy it. Only a rabid gun nut would resell that gun. Or a
"connected" "american entrepeneur" who would do anything for money.

It is illegal (for a non FFL holder) to purchase a handgun with the
intention of transferring it to someone else. I couldn't buy a
handgun for my wife[*], of all fool things. She can easily use any
that are in the house.

[*] A misread of the law, AIUI.

It is in any case unlawful to see a firearm of any kind to a convicted
felon or person who has been adjudicated mentally defective (I forget
the exact wording of the mental illness provision). The "gun show
loophole" does not make such sales lawful, it merely recognizes that
private individuals do not have the means of conducting background
checks and that policing a background check requirement on such sales is
impossible.

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....

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

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 had said (among other things)

those sales should be officially illegal.

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Generally, they already are, Han. All those boys on big-city side-
street alleys selling guns to their crazy friends aren't walking the
straight and narrow.

Geesh, than that must be true Larry (intentionally sarcastic)
Now, where did those firearms come from? In New York City "they"
(police/press, whatever) say it is because in some/many states further
south along I95 it is perfectly legal to buy a gun for most people, and
some just drive up north and sell them, or lose them.

And as long as our borders are wide open, terrorists (and other illegal
aliens) as well as weapons and drugsflood over them 24/7/365.

Now you are insulting the good folks of the border patrol and the
immigration officers at the (air) ports.

Obviously as long as there isn't well-patrolled barbed wire 2 miles high
along the borders and coasts, someone will get through with contraband.
However, I believe many firearms are produced (some with state aid) right
here. So the "easiest" thing would be to make possession and sale of
certain weapons illegal amd traceable. Stinger missiles anyways.

Bloomberg is part of the problem, too.

I have my differences with Bloomberg as well as Christie and Cuomo, but
what problem are you referring to, Larry?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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?


--
"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

Doug Winterburn wrote in
b.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 ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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).

- The people misusing guns are - by definition - doing something
illegal.

- Your proposed solutions is to legislate more laws for ... the
other 99+ % of the population.

'See any flaws with that?

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

Han wrote:


Geesh, than that must be true Larry (intentionally sarcastic)
Now, where did those firearms come from? In New York City "they"
(police/press, whatever) say it is because in some/many states further
south along I95 it is perfectly legal to buy a gun for most people,
and some just drive up north and sell them, or lose them.

It may be true that that's what they say but then again Bloomberg and his
crowd never really cared much for accuracy. Think about it Han... How many
illegal guns are there in NYC? And all, or most, or a large number of them
come from people as you describe above? Are you really that naive?


Obviously as long as there isn't well-patrolled barbed wire 2 miles
high along the borders and coasts, someone will get through with
contraband. However, I believe many firearms are produced (some with
state aid) right here. So the "easiest" thing would be to make
possession and sale of certain weapons illegal amd traceable.
Stinger missiles anyways.

Posession of certain weapons is already illegal. Traceable? So you can
trace them back to the crook who used them?


--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


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.

Sure thing - we'll get right on getting all those crooks to register their
guns. Should work and shouldn't take long at all. BTW Han - all handguns
must be registered in NY already, and the average citizen can't even get a
pistol permit in NYC. See how well that works?


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-

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

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.

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?

Registries are used to track down lawful citizens and lawful weapons.
How does that stop crime? Ever?

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.

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_.

--
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

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

Geesh, than that must be true Larry (intentionally sarcastic)
Now, where did those firearms come from? In New York City "they"
(police/press, whatever) say it is because in some/many states
further south along I95 it is perfectly legal to buy a gun for most
people, and some just drive up north and sell them, or lose them.

It may be true that that's what they say but then again Bloomberg and
his crowd never really cared much for accuracy. Think about it Han...
How many illegal guns are there in NYC? And all, or most, or a large
number of them come from people as you describe above? Are you really
that naive?

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???

Obviously as long as there isn't well-patrolled barbed wire 2 miles
high along the borders and coasts, someone will get through with
contraband. However, I believe many firearms are produced (some with
state aid) right here. So the "easiest" thing would be to make
possession and sale of certain weapons illegal amd traceable.
Stinger missiles anyways.

Posession of certain weapons is already illegal. Traceable? So you
can trace them back to the crook who used them?

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.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Daneliuk wrote in
news
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.

- 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 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.

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???
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 27 Dec 2012 12:58:31 GMT, Han wrote:
responsible for it. So if a bad guy obtains a weapon, the last prior
owner is responsible. Period.

That's the problem with cut and dried approaches, they don't take into
account all the variables, both innocent and criminal.

I'm sure you're aware of the attempt to rigidly control gun ownership
in Canada. Guns (including hand guns) can be licensed and owned if
they're safely stored.

One such gun owner had his firearms properly stored in a large
effective gun safe. While he was away on holidays, thieves broke into
his home and spent the better part of a weekend cutting into his safe
to steal his guns.

Would you have such a responsible gun owner be criminally liable for
the theft of his firearms?

"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.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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. 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'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.

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??

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.

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.

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

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave wrote in
:

On 27 Dec 2012 12:58:31 GMT, Han wrote:
responsible for it. So if a bad guy obtains a weapon, the last prior
owner is responsible. Period.

That's the problem with cut and dried approaches, they don't take into
account all the variables, both innocent and criminal.

I'm sure you're aware of the attempt to rigidly control gun ownership
in Canada. Guns (including hand guns) can be licensed and owned if
they're safely stored.

One such gun owner had his firearms properly stored in a large
effective gun safe. While he was away on holidays, thieves broke into
his home and spent the better part of a weekend cutting into his safe
to steal his guns.

Would you have such a responsible gun owner be criminally liable for
the theft of his firearms?

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? Indeed,
there are always unintended consequences, but the point is that theft is
a possibility, which is why governments make big efforts to secure their
stashes of weapons. Citizens should do the same.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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...Worsening.aspx

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.

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".

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.

The Ant-Gun Movement: Where reason, sanity, and careful thought
go to die.

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/
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

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 Daneliuk