wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:16:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more
people than guns.

We have a lot more guns than cars and the death toll is about 20%
higher with cars. in spite of the fact that cars are about the most
highly regulated things in the country. We license the cars, we
license the users, we regulate the manufacturers, we recall defective
cars, improve the safety of the roads and we patrol the roads with
hundreds of thousands of cops 24/7.

If you take out suicide and criminal on criminal murders guns are not
even in the running. Swimming pools kill a lot more kids under 5 than
guns.
What is your solution?

Sounds like your solution is to stop regulating cars. Cars kill more
people
because more people in the US use cars per day/per week/per year than
people
use guns.

No but where is the outrage when someone runs over a kid with a car?
They certainly are not looking for jail time if the driver is not a 3
time loser drunk.

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances, obviously.


Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering
gun deaths?

Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero
effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give
them another lucrative business to get into.
Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable.

Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but
that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns
available... to secure them better as well.

It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being
used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:26:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when
considering
gun deaths?

Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero
effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give
them another lucrative business to get into.
Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable.

Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but
that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns
available... to secure them better as well.

It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being
used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka.


You mean like "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?

Look at the UK crime statistics since they have totally outlawed guns.
They are doing worse.
On the other hand the states that started allowing concealed carry are
doing better than before.
Statistical anomaly?
Perhaps,... but the whole Brady campaign is based on statistical
anomalies.

?? This doesn't look worse to me...

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:15:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:26:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when
considering
gun deaths?

Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero
effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give
them another lucrative business to get into.
Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable.

Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but
that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns
available... to secure them better as well.

It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being
used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe
vodka.


You mean like "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?

Look at the UK crime statistics since they have totally outlawed guns.
They are doing worse.
On the other hand the states that started allowing concealed carry are
doing better than before.
Statistical anomaly?
Perhaps,... but the whole Brady campaign is based on statistical
anomalies.

?? This doesn't look worse to me...

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm


You can play all sorts of games with statistics.
Take suicide. Japan is virtually gun free but they have a lot bigger
suicide rate per 100,000 than us. Where there is a will there is a
way. We kill more people with knives than UK murders, all causes.
I haven't done it lately but when I was crunching numbers for a living
I loaded raw data into a database and sliced it up different ways. All
that proves is you can make interesting talking points out of anything
and be 100% accurate with the numbers.
NRA and Brady both do that.

When you get down to what I really believe, I am probably more in
favor of reasonable regulation than most here but I think the idea of
bans and unreasonable regulation is just short sighted and dumb.


Just look at the effect of the assault weapons ban. Before people
really started making an issue of these things, they were a niche
market, involving a very few gun nuts buying very expensive guns,
mostly living in the deserts of the southwest who had safe places to
shoot them. Criminals still had their saturday night specials and were
happy with them. Then suddenly the only thing we heard on TV was the
peril of assault weapons and people who had never heard of them needed
one. To make matters worse there was a threat to ban them and China
sold us 2 million cheap knockoffs in less than 2 years (pre ban and
post ban models). A real collector would not touch this chink junk on
a bet. I blame Clinton for that because he could have stopped these
imports with an executive order but he did not want to upset his new
chinese friends.
After that the people who thought these were such a great investment
ended up holding the bag because the bottom fell out of the market.
That $500-600 thumb hole AK clone was suddenly only worth $250 and
they started getting dumped into the cash and carry market.
The ban didn't actually ban anything, reduced the price of the guns
and put 2 million on the street.

If you're in favor of reasonable gun regulations, then you're way, way out
on the fringes of right-wing political thought and policy.

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing gun
problem we have in this country.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...t-any-caliber/

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...t-any-caliber/




That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions in
the works, and I don't have the details.

While it's probably true that no trigger lock is 100% foolproof, it's also
true that most criminals who want to use a gun aren't bright enough to do
the disassembly, etc., to get it to work.

On 9/20/10 8:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:38:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

There are dozens of designs but they all culminate in a solenoid that
allows the sear to move. Once you take the gun apart it is trivial to
figure out which way you need to make that go and just wedge it that
way. (super glue, remove and replace with a paper clip, whatever)
These things are really designed for cops who are worried about losing
their gun in a fight and being shot by it right then, not for someone
who has the time to take the gun apart and defeat it.
The problem is most cops I know value reliability far beyond the
chance they might drop their gun and they want it as simple as they
can get it. They do not want to trust their life on a complicated
electronic circuit and a more complicated action. That is why most
cops like the Glock double action trigger design with NO safety. My
Ruger KP90 is the same way, no safety. (The P in KP is for Police).
You carry the gun, hammer down on a live cylinder and the first round
is fired "double action".


Last time I read up on Glocks, the factory was installing the typical
semi-auto mechanical safety on request on firearms to be issued to some
domestic and overseas police departments. The one thing I did not like
about my Glock 34 was the lack of a mechanical safety.

My CZ SP-01 Shadow Custom has ambi safeties and is single acton, with a
straight trigger with a 2.5 pound pull. It's significantly more accurate
for me than my old Glock 34, seems to fire faster, and is safer in my
carry holster. It's also steel, so there's even less muzzle flip.