On 7/29/2013 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


You forgot one thing... Let me "fix" your statement..

The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him and the democratic party needs a huge distraction leading up to an
election. Then it is a national disaster.

There you go... I fixed it.

On 7/29/13 2:50 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/29/2013 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


You forgot one thing... Let me "fix" your statement..

The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him and the democratic party needs a huge distraction leading up to an
election. Then it is a national disaster.

There you go... I fixed it.


And once again, you prove you don't know anything about anything.

How's your homegrown racing doing this season

In article ,
says...

On 7/29/2013 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


You forgot one thing... Let me "fix" your statement..

The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him and the democratic party needs a huge distraction leading up to an
election. Then it is a national disaster.

There you go... I fixed it.

You couldn't fix a bicycle, you narrow minded twit.

In article ,
says...

On 7/29/13 2:50 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/29/2013 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


You forgot one thing... Let me "fix" your statement..

The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him and the democratic party needs a huge distraction leading up to an
election. Then it is a national disaster.

There you go... I fixed it.


And once again, you prove you don't know anything about anything.

How's your homegrown racing doing this season

Now, quit, he's stated right here that he has a mental problem because
of getting his jawbone broke......

On 7/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:02:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/29/13 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


"Everything is equal, and nothing is worse than anything else, so,
therefore, a white kid who busts into a school and kills 20 kids and a
few teachers, and a white kid who shoots up a movie theater and kills 12
people and wounds 70 others, and two white kids who shoot up a Colorado
school and kill 12 and shoot up 24 others, and so on and so forth, ad
nauseum, are the equivalent of our normal quota of daily murders, some
of which are committed by blacks, some by whites, and some by people of
other races, and therefore the mass murders should not be reported by
the TV news because, well, because virtually all the mass murders are
committed by whites and that makes us whitey racists look bad."

Got it.

Your mass killers were black guys. (DC Sniper)
As soon as they were caught, that story just went away.


1. The DC snipers were serial killers, not mass killers.

2. The news about them stayed in the news for years.

On 7/29/13 5:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:50:32 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 7/29/2013 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:59:45 -0700, jps wrote:

Australia is always the poster child for gun control laws but the
reality is the trend line for murders did not change in any
perceptible way when they banned and confiscated most of the guns.
Certainly less people were killed by guns but they still found a way.

But no more mass murders, to date.

Mass killings are such an insignificant part of the murder rate that
they get lost in the noise, statistically. It is just what the TV
chooses to report.
They have a "Newtown" in the black community every week and it barely
makes the paper.
The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him. Then it is a national disaster.


You forgot one thing... Let me "fix" your statement..

The only time a dead black guy makes the news is if a white guy kills
him and the democratic party needs a huge distraction leading up to an
election. Then it is a national disaster.

There you go... I fixed it.

There was barely a ripple when the Bohannon brothers were shot by a
black guy.
It had nothing to do with the "Free Zimmerman" bumper sticker on their
truck. They swear.


Maybe it was because the brothers and their shooter knew each other, and
it involved the sale of drugs or robbery related to drugs.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:44:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The DC snipers were serial killers, not mass killers.

===

The only difference is the rate of fire.

On 7/29/13 6:17 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:44:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The DC snipers were serial killers, not mass killers.

===

The only difference is the rate of fire.


No, Wayne, that's not the only difference. The rate of fire has nothing
to do with the differentiation.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:23:27 -0400, wrote:

In light of those statistics, shall we be expecting you to dispose of
those guns you own?

===

Harry is special, just ask him. He needs his guns but no one else
does.

On 7/29/13 7:23 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:43:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


An Overview of Gun Control in US, Canada and Globally

The United States stands out among developed countries for being home to
approximately one third of all firearms in the world and weak controls
on access to firearms.

The rate of gun ownership in the US is much higher than most comparable
countries, with approximately 42.8% of American household owning
firearms, including 17.6% owning handguns in 2005. The developed country
with the next highest ownership rate was Finland, where 37.9% of the
population owning firearms, though only 6.3% owned handguns. Switzerland
was the country with the second highest handgun ownership, at 10.3%,
with an overall rate of 28.6% for all firearms. In Canada, 15.5% of
households own firearms, with 2.9% owning handguns.

Where there are more guns, more deaths usually follow. The death rate
by firearms in the United States was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009,
for a total of 31,347 deaths. This is nearly as many as in car
accidents, where 34,485 Americans died that same year. The American rate
of death by firearms is nearly twice as high as the nearest other
developed country, again Finland, with a rate of 4.47 in 2008. In
Canada, the rate was 2.5 in 2009, while the UK had only 0.25 in 2011.

Some studies have examined the link between gun ownership rates and
firearm death rates, with one comparing rates in Canada, the US,
England/Wales and Australia. It concluded that 92 percent of the
variance in death rates was explained by differences in access to
firearms. The rates of death from firearms in Canada in the United
States have also been studied, with one of the most well-known analyses
being a comparison of Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British
Columbia that showed that despite similarities in size and demographics,
the rate of firearm homicide is considerably different as a result of
the differences in the availability of firearms in the two countries.

Like with overall firearm deaths, the consequences of permissive access
to firearms can also be seen in homicide and crime statistics. The US
homicide rate (per 100,000) committed without guns is only slightly
higher (1.4 times) than the Canadian rate. However the rate of homicide
with guns in the U.S. is 6 times higher than that seen in Canada and the
rate of homicide with handguns in the U.S. (2.41 per 100,000) is 7 times
higher than the Canadian rate (0.33 per 100,000). The pattern with
robbery is similar. In the United States, there were more than 408,000
robberies in 2009, 36 percent of them with firearms, with a rate of 55
per 100,000. In Canada, in contrast, there were 32,200 robberies, 14
percent of them with firearms, for a rate of 13 per 100,000. Yet the
rates of robberies without firearms are roughly the same in the two
countries. (Click on this link for table and graphs)


http://tinyurl.com/mpm4fa6

In light of those statistics, shall we be expecting you to dispose of
those guns you own?


1. I don't take my firearms out of the house unless I am transporting
them to a formal or informal firing range, or to a gunsmith.

2. Unlike PsychoScotty here, I'm not psychotic. Further, unlike several
posters here who live in Virginia and Florida, my home state is very
strict about firearms transactions and performs serious background
checks. I'm one of a small number of Maryland residents with a concealed
carry permit and while it didn't require much effort on my part to get
it, the background check was serious and severe.

3. Unlike Herring and several others here, I don't hate anyone because
they are black, white, "other," christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist,
"other," or male or female, or old or young, not do I make threatening
remarks about politicians. It is true I'd like to see Dick Cheney in
prison, but I know that is not going to happen and I'm not upset about it.

4. Unlike several posters here, I'm not afraid to drive or walk around
unarmed. I don't fear people who aren't the same as I am in terms of
race, religion, gender, country of origin, et cetera. I do have a couple
of shotguns in the house available to ward off psychotic or home
invaders. I don't walk through my neighborhood armed and looking for a
teenager to shoot.

5. I've sold by legal, documented means most of my small collection of
firearms. I have remaining two pistols, one of which is a target pistol,
two shotguns, and one small caliber scoped long rifle for target shooting.

As always, have a really nice day.