How many more?
 

"Tomasso" wrote in message
...

"PDW" wrote in message
...
OzOne wrote:
...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Are you seriously suggesting that nobody
has
bought a *new* gun since 1996, Oz? What I've heard is, the number of guns
sold
post 1996 is now greater than the number handed in.

Who needs a new gun. One that I remember fondly was a .577/450 calibre
Martini action
from Indian campaigns. The cartridge was obsolete so the owner rechambered
and
put on a new barrel. I can't remember what it was changed to, but it had
somewhat
of a kick.

You can still but the .577/450, but they are hand tooled, and come in boxes
of three. Last I saw they were about $110 per round (1994-5).
Hefalumps, not rabbits ;-)

Marky.


T.

Difference is, these are all brand new modern firearms, not clapped out
22RF
semiautos. Either way, there are more firearms in private hands now than
there
were 10 years ago. At least registered ones. Kind of screws your argument
but
never mind, you'll have a cognitive disconnect and fail to take this on
board.

As for getting illegal guns off the streets, sorry, Easter has gone and
the
Easter bunny is resting until next year.

Hmmm. The guy that owned the Martini WAS a rabbit inspector...

PDW

How many more?
 

Why is your opinion regarding different (more) laws different from that
regarding the laws we already have? - What's so good about the existing
laws (that apparently causes you to regard them differently than new
laws)? You're not being consistent when you say that more (or different)
laws would be useless, but we shouldn't cancel the ones we have.

Many of the laws we have are stupid and pointless but not all of
them. I think that adding more laws makes things more difficult and
we are already haveing a very hard time keepin gup with the ones we
have. I don't think that spending time and money on more restrictions
than are already in place will do any good and in fact I feelt that it
will make things worse. I think that the laws aimed at making policy
makers look like they are doing something (such as laws that ban guns
more on appearance than actual crime usage) should be removed but
things like registering and background checks should stay in place. I
do think that people should have to take a test to purchse any firearm
anywhere in the U.S. not just handguns. I do think that laws
regarding safe storage and handling should stay on the books. I can't
speak for outside CA but here you have to have approved locks on all
of your guns and everyone I know uses them. It's not an all or
nothing with me, not that you are advocating this, but I have seen
what more gun laws do to help and I am really unimpressed. I do know
that when something goes wrong with a legally owned firearm it is
usually because laws that are already in place are being violated but
not enforced or used properly (i.e. a crazy person person is not
reported to the proper authorities). Sometimes thougth there is
nothing the laws will do to stop this kind of violence.

If you are getting your information and opinions from police and from
Harvard law graduates, I'm impressed. But I think it's pretty well
accepted that most police chiefs in large departments favor more
restrictive gun regulations.

I can't speak for what most police chiefs think or want but in my
experience the thing they want the most is to stop letting criminals
out of prison and off easy. Many crimes are committed either because
the criminals are not concerned with the consequences, becuse they
seem them as a joke, or because those that have already been caught
are let out early and go back to breaking the law. I know this isn't
part of gun control but if the person is held responsible and not let
off easily then the crime of hurting another will be committed less.
I think we can all agree that it's stopping the violence against
innocent people that's important here not guns themselves. I
understand that some people think that restricting or banning guns is
a partial solution but I don't see how more restrictions will help
when the ones we have get trampled all over on a regular basis by
those people that do mean to harm others.

How many more?
 

Or fertilizer and gasoline. 168 Timothy McVeigh.

And how many people were killed in the US by the use of fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?

Jim

You're missing the point. It's not that fertilizer and gasoline
should be banned it is simply that people that wasnt to kill other
people will always find a way. If they want to kill a lot of people
they don't need a gun. Several people in this thread have tried to
use the VT shootings as the biggest example for why guns should be
either banned or more heavily restriced, because a gun allows you kill
more people than a knife or club, but the McVeigh example shows that
it doesn't take a gun to kill a lot of people, in fact without a gun
and just some basic ingredients you can kill many more than with a
gun. Had McVeigh run out and tried to shoot people he may have gotten
a pretty high number but not 168. I'm not saying that he should have
used a gun because it would have been better for the people but just
illustrating the point that people are dangerous and inventive.

How many more?
 

"Bill" wrote in message
ps.com...
Or fertilizer and gasoline. 168 Timothy McVeigh.

And how many people were killed in the US by the use of fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?

Jim

You're missing the point. It's not that fertilizer and gasoline
should be banned it is simply that people that wasnt to kill other
people will always find a way. If they want to kill a lot of people
they don't need a gun. Several people in this thread have tried to
use the VT shootings as the biggest example for why guns should be
either banned or more heavily restriced, because a gun allows you kill
more people than a knife or club, but the McVeigh example shows that
it doesn't take a gun to kill a lot of people, in fact without a gun
and just some basic ingredients you can kill many more than with a
gun. Had McVeigh run out and tried to shoot people he may have gotten
a pretty high number but not 168. I'm not saying that he should have
used a gun because it would have been better for the people but just
illustrating the point that people are dangerous and inventive.



All true, but guns kill far more people than knives, fertilizer, etc. every
years. They need to be more regulated as a result. Cars, for example, are
highly regulated, more so than guns. You have to take a driving test,
written test, eye test, pay registration fees, have insurance, etc. Is it
the solution? No, but can you imagine what it would be like without having
some or all of those requirements? Utter chaos. This comparison can be used
for many things... airplanes, CG regs for commercial shipping, nukes, etc.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

"JimC" wrote in message
t...



Guns don't kill people, people do? How many people do you
think he would
have killed if he tried to use two knives, instead of two
guns? Or two
clubs, or two brass knuckles? Or two pairs of scissors?
Staple guns?
Machetes?


Two bombs?

two 747s ?

Two Mac26Xs ?

SBV

How many more?
 

OzOne wrote in message
...
On 18 Apr 2007 18:06:38 -0700, Bill


Do you honestly believe that a man with a gun, intent on
killing
multiples is no more dangerous that a man with a knife or
club?


YES !!!!! he could have wiped out the entire school with
some bio poison.

Use your head, ozzy.

Scotty

How many more?
 

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"JimC" wrote in message
t...



Guns don't kill people, people do? How many people do you
think he would
have killed if he tried to use two knives, instead of two
guns? Or two
clubs, or two brass knuckles? Or two pairs of scissors?
Staple guns?
Machetes?


Two Mac26Xs ?

One is sufficient. g



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...
. But I think it's pretty well
accepted that most police chiefs in large departments
favor more
restrictive gun regulations.


Gee, now there's a surprise. ( that's sarcasm, Jimmy).

They also favor seizure laws. Who'd a thunk it?

SBV

How many more?
 

"JimC" wrote in message
. net...





Or fertilizer and gasoline. 168 Timothy McVeigh.


And how many people were killed in the US by the use of
fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the
last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?


probably 0, Timmy used diesel fuel.

SBV

How many more?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"
Guns don't kill people, people do? How many people do
you
think he would
have killed if he tried to use two knives, instead of
two
guns? Or two
clubs, or two brass knuckles? Or two pairs of
scissors?
Staple guns?
Machetes?


Two Mac26Xs ?

One is sufficient. g


So, you admit gun control is a stupid idea. About time.

Scotty