Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
This happened this morning. About an hour from where we live.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-to-blaze?lite -- -Mike- |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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) |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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/ |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 ... |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"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 |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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- |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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? |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"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 |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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- |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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/ |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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. |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
|
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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/ |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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- |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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- |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"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 |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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? |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
"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 |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
A Not So Merry Christmas in Webster, NY
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Belated Merry Christmas. Best Wishes For The Coming YearGiven the state of the economy, I'm betting a lot of Christmas gifts - came from your lathe(s) - and that you found being a Santa's Elf fun and satisfying. I hope the coming year is more prosep | Woodturning | |||
Merry Christmas RCM | Metalworking | |||
Merry Christmas everybody. | Woodworking | |||
Merry Christmas | Woodworking | |||
Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | Woodturning |