"True North" wrote in message
...



Limiting to one gun purchase a month is a hardship?
Over 5 short years a person could horde 60 guns??
I'd say one gun a year would be plenty.

--------------------------------------

I belong to a Sportsman's Club, the activities of which includes
target practice with handguns and rifles, skeet and trap shooting, old
black powder muzzle loader shooting, archery, knife and even tomahawk
throwing. If you want to get involved there are competitive events
with other clubs and ranges It's a hobby and interest for many.
There is also active activity in selling and buying different types of
guns plus many collectors. All normal, healthy and legal
transactions with paperwork records sent to the state.

If you only view firearm ownership through the jaundiced eye of the
media hype, your comments are understandable. But it's not reality.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:10:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for
Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)

Yes, all true, BUT, the thing is, a lot of the natural causes aren't
preventable, and besides, the ONLY one of the above that is
manufactured
to kill is the firearm.

---------------------------------------------

There are millions of gun owners who use, collect and enjoy firearms
who have never killed anything with one, let alone another human.
Realistically, it's a tiny percentage of the population who have and
most of them obtained their weapons illegally.

I am for permits, background checks and I don't object to the taking
of electronic fingerprints for each purchase. But what good does it
do to punish the law abiding population for the actions of a violent
few by limiting the number of purchases and taxing the bananas out of
ammunition?

Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo
that are owned by the public?

Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell
an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why
can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own
drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I
want to?

Why am I being punished?

I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were
incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find
another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent
methods available to suicidal persons?

Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say
under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those
other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those
stats above? Not so many.

"jps" wrote in message
...


Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say
under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those
other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those
stats above? Not so many.

--------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, I recently looked up the statistics on automobile
accidents.

By far, the most occur with drivers between the ages of 45 and 55.
It's something like 20 percent.

Old farts (like me) account for less than 6 percent.

wrote in message ...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:44:59 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .


Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's
say
under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those
other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those
stats above? Not so many.

--------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, I recently looked up the statistics on automobile
accidents.

By far, the most occur with drivers between the ages of 45 and 55.
It's something like 20 percent.

Old farts (like me) account for less than 6 percent.


The question is who is in serious or fatal accidents. If you believe
the insurance companies, it is 25 and under.

-------------------------------------------------

Scroll down to Table 1114. Looks like the age groups of 25 to 34
and 45 to 54 have the highest number of fatal accidents.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1114.pdf

On 2/19/2013 11:08 AM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:10:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for
Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)

Yes, all true, BUT, the thing is, a lot of the natural causes aren't
preventable, and besides, the ONLY one of the above that is
manufactured
to kill is the firearm.

---------------------------------------------

There are millions of gun owners who use, collect and enjoy firearms
who have never killed anything with one, let alone another human.
Realistically, it's a tiny percentage of the population who have and
most of them obtained their weapons illegally.

I am for permits, background checks and I don't object to the taking
of electronic fingerprints for each purchase. But what good does it
do to punish the law abiding population for the actions of a violent
few by limiting the number of purchases and taxing the bananas out of
ammunition?

Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo
that are owned by the public?

Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell
an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why
can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own
drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I
want to?

Why am I being punished?

I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were
incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find
another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent
methods available to suicidal persons?

Might I suggest Harri Kari by falling on a #2 lead pencil. Cheap quiet
and less messy.

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.


Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they
will never do that...

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:37:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:


Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory
breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat
belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)
That might save more people than banning guns.

Nah... just install a device that blocks the driver from *all* smart phone usage, application of makeup, or eating/drinking, and we're saving thousands of lives.

Oh, and no dogs in your lap when driving. The kids damn well better be strapped in!

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:37:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:


Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory
breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat
belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)
That might save more people than banning guns.

Nah... just install a device that blocks the driver from *all* smart phone usage, application of makeup, or eating/drinking, and we're saving thousands of lives.

Oh, and no dogs in your lap when driving. The kids damn well better be strapped in!

Once again, the stupid-ness over guns comes out. Are you channeling that
idiot darling of the right Ted Nugent? The difference that the narrow
minded fails to see is that guns are made to kill, cars are not.