On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:46:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/2/2014 11:07 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/2/2014 10:02 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with
legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage.
You've mistaken me for Basskisser.

OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking
about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings,
robberies gone bad and gang violence?


Gun crimes by legal gun owners.



I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed
by legal gun owners.


Define "legal" gun owners.



What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased
guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'.

I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't
want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that
was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I
was finished with it.

The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon
most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in
Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by
legal gun owners?



I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by
legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the
areas you mentioned.

legal
adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related
to the law.

For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you
have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No
permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if
you want to conceal carry however.

Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission
from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their
rights?



No I don't, but in that case how do you justify the federal laws that
prohibits those with a felony conviction from legally owning a firearm
or not being able to vote if you are in prison, on parole or on
probation?

Why shouldn't a person who has served their time (prison, parole or
probation) for a conviction have his rights restored? If evidence of
previous bad acts can't be used to convict someone why should the same
apply with respect to rights.

I support the idea of having background checks for gun ownership.

Do you support the idea of having background checks for casting votes?
Why do you treat some rights differently than other rights?



Voting and owning a gun are two different things, don'cha think? Come
to think of it, I don't know which is more dangerous. -)

BTW .. While in prison a convict cannot vote. While he/she is is on
parole or probation ... they cannot vote. Once a sentence is served or
a parole/probation period is completed, their right to vote is restored.
Federal law.


Are you talking about legal or illegal convicts? :)