On 3/27/13 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


"Don't marry an asshole like John Herring."

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:22:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/27/13 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


"Don't marry an asshole like John Herring."

I was thinking that but thought I'd see what you had to say.

"J Herring" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing.
How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down
range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require
a lot more time.

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

Much more time in handling, loading, firing and cleaning of different
popular gun types.
Much more on general awareness of things like how far a round travels
for different gun types.
How to properly and safely "carry".
How to safely deal with jammed guns or "stovepipes".
Review of pertinent laws related to gun ownership and transfers.
Much more range time and instruction, especially for those who are new
to guns.

Finally, there should be a test. A real one, not a phony self
correct, self grade type thing like the one I took.

I can probably think up a few dozen more.

My oldest son and his wife both received their LTC in Massachusetts
before relocating to South Carolina.
Neither of them had any experience at all with guns. They took a
course that lasted for a month, meeting two or three times a week. 20
hours of instruction, then they spent 3 Saturdays at a range shooting
under instruction for a couple of hours each day.

When I took the course, it was one morning ... four hours of
"instruction" and one hour at the range. He covered the basics that
any idiot would know. The state has a checklist of items to be
covered, from handling guns to road rage. In many cases the
instructor just read the checklist off to us so he could claim he
covered them all.

I've learned more by reading by myself and from talking to experienced
gun owners at the range I belong to.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.

==========

Clearing jams, inspection, cleaning, unloading. A high percentage of
accidental discharges occur during one of those four operations.

From there you could go on to strategies for developing speed and
accuracy, range practice, different types of guns, etc.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:37:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:25:29 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Do you really think the guy selling stolen guns really gives a ****
who filled out the last 4473 on it?
The same would be true of the guy buying it.

For all time? The gun will never break will never get sold to a pawn
shop, will never do anything except continually circle around with
criminals, even after they're killed by the cops during their violent
rampage? Give me a ****ing break.

So you really think a guy with a gun he bought on the street will take
it into a gun dealer and register it? They just get passed around
until someone throws it in the river or the cops get it.
If the cops collect it they will either destroy it, put it in the
auction, assuming the number in NCIC is clean or the cop will put it
in his pocket for a throw down gun later.

Passed around? Any citation for that bull****? I can just see some
smack dealer passing around his gun.

Sure. And the cops are all corrupt. You sound like Glen Beck.

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:36:40 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:31:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

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

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

So you support prop 8 then?

Huh? Clearly unconstitutional. What does that have to do with people
dying from guns? Oh, I get it homosexuals are threatening.

Keep trying to twist your way out of it but you're a right wing freak,
and this just makes it obvious.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:38:52 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:33:16 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:12:32 -0400, wrote:


The NRA target robocalling the citizens of Newtown is almost as bad as
the idiots from Westboro Baptist.

Did they just call Newtown or did they hit every number in the LATA?
I get NRA robocalls here about once a month.

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

So, they're stupid and a bunch of assholes. Great combo.

That pretty much describes any robo call operation.

Really? So, then it's your crowd.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

Did you READ the article?

Yes, it said nothing about the scope of the robocall campaign only
that people in Newtown got called. It didn't even say if they were
only people on the NRA donors list.



But they cannot do any wrong. The ****ing NRA are blood sucking scum
that only give a **** about where their next gun mouthful comes from.

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to
bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

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

Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman?