Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.

Guns are designed to propel bullets under controlled circumstances. When
guns are monkeyed with, like your CZ, the circumstances might be less
controlled and possibly unpredictable. I suppose that's why you got rid
of it. ;-)

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/13/14, 7:30 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill.

I've never seen any valid stats that indicate that any significant
number of law abiding *civilian* citizens has faced down anyone trying
to kill them. And by valid, I don't mean the pseudo studies conducted by
firearms acolytes.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:44:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:30 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:06:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 12:21:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 5/13/14, 12:10 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 15:53:40 -0700, jps wrote:

Investigators found nearly two dozen guns and thousands of rounds of
ammunition lying around the Arizona home of a 3-year-old boy who
accidentally shot himself earlier this year.

I am totally in favor of the laws that require people to keep their
guns locked up but it is the law in every state to secure your
swimming pool, yet drowning is the most frequent cause of accidental
death in toddlers (1-5) and I do not see JPS or any of the other
lefties here demanding that those parents go to jail.
In fact gun deaths end up down in "other" in the tables for pre
adolescents (CDC WISQARS database) but from the hysteria, you would
think they were being killed in droves.



Right because everything is equal, right, right, right?


The question is why you "hysterians" think a kid dying from a gun
accident where the gun was improperly stored is any worse that dying
in a car, when they were illegally unrestrained, dying in an illegally
unprotected swimming pool or being poisoned from improperly stored
chemicals, in spite of the FACT that gun accidents barely move the
needle on the gauge of child deaths.
I would post sensational news stories of these other types of
accidents but they are not even unusual enough to make the news.
More toddlers are killed or injured from detergent pods than firearms
but they are still being advertised on TV and I see them in every
grocery store.

This story JPS posted is purely agenda based hysteria, not backed any
kind of reality.



Valid points and there's no question that gun control advocates will use
this as a rallying cry for more strict laws and controls in general.
The bottom line however is that parents are responsible for the well
being and safety of minor children period, regardless of the kind of
dangers and should be held accountable if they fail to perform their
parental responsibilities.

In some ways I sorta wish that accountability extended to more than
tragic accidents. Teaching and setting examples of responsible
behavior is also a parental responsibility. It seems that the trend has
become to defend inappropriate behavior than to instill it in kids.

Apparently, gun culture mirrors the parental model employed by most
families. Each family is free to determine how it operates, only
restricted by the boundaries put in place by our society.

So, if your kid doesn't end up in the hospital or show up at school
with a broken arm or bruised body from mistreatment or disregard,
anything goes.

What you're suggesting would require some common sense laws, like
those that exist for driving a car. Use the privilege recklessly and
lose it.

Those idiots in Arizona have no business owning guns if they cannot
abide by common sense behavior. They endanger themselves, their
children and any guests by their stupid behavior.



I think the mistake you are making in your assumptions is that the "gun
culture" in places like Arizona or Texas is the same as that in your
part of the world or mine. They aren't. Having firearms in those
communities is as common as a swimming pool in your back yard. Well,
maybe not *your* backyard but in many areas of the country.

As a sidebar note, having permits, legal fencing and meeting all the
lawful safety requirements of having a swimming pool does *not*
necessarily cause the pool owner to be held harmless in the event of an
accident, injury or death regardless of the victim's age. This was
explained to me years ago by my attorney. The only "hold harmless" law
that automatically protects the property owner against litigation are
old laws related to equestrian activities and only if notice of such are
posted.

Ah, yes. It's important that we protect those who might engage in
dressage without a permit.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:02:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

I'm in favor of people being able to defend themselves, their
families, their homes.

I would, however, put stringent controls on the sale, ownership and
transfer of weapons and treat those who misunderstand the law very
harshly.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:05:02 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

I don't believe you will get an honest answer from JPS. He most likely
owns a handgun himself and with his inflated view of himself he may
believe that he is smart enough to own it but, the rest of the people
are not of his high caliber of mental and intellectual capacity to even
look at a firearm.

Bertie poop, nearly all wrong. I sold my 6 shot revolver before we
had kids. I don't have guns in the house.

I don't put myself in situations that would have hostility visiting my
house, live in a good neighborhood, keep my house secure and figure
that I can use my brains to get my family out of trouble if need be. I
would certainly take another's life by whatever means available or
sacrafice my own if my wife or kids were threatened.

I don't live my life scared of the boogeyman.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/16/14, 3:27 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 13:02:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

I'm in favor of people being able to defend themselves, their
families, their homes.

I would, however, put stringent controls on the sale, ownership and
transfer of weapons and treat those who misunderstand the law very
harshly.


I agree. I have a few firearms, and I was not even slightly
inconvenienced in terms of restrictions, paperwork, or wait periods in
purchasing them.

Totally legal? No arrests...
 

On 5/16/14, 3:33 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:05:02 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 5/15/2014 12:52 PM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:29 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 5:15 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 5/13/14, 4:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 5/13/2014 3:31 PM, jps wrote:

You don't leave running cars lying around the house, nor are they
designed to kill things. They're what's called transportation, dummy.




One of the design purposes of a gun is to prevent *being* killed.


Another, of course, is to kill.



uh huh. So, who's going to declare a truce and disarm first ... those
who try to kill or those who are trying to prevent being killed?

Those with guns who are trying to prevent being killed far outnumber
those who actually kill. The vast majority of gun owners are law
abiding and would only shoot someone as a last resort measure.

Most gun related events in the home aren't related to crime prevention
or bodily injury prevention but accidents or domestic disputes between
family members.

Prevention is among the least likely uses for guns in a home.


See? Some would argue that it works! :-)

I posed a question to you a week or so ago and don't know if you
responded with an answer or not. Might have missed it.
I asked what *your* position on guns is. Do you favor private ownership
at all of handguns or are you an advocate to outlaw them entirely?

I don't believe you will get an honest answer from JPS. He most likely
owns a handgun himself and with his inflated view of himself he may
believe that he is smart enough to own it but, the rest of the people
are not of his high caliber of mental and intellectual capacity to even
look at a firearm.

Bertie poop, nearly all wrong. I sold my 6 shot revolver before we
had kids. I don't have guns in the house.

I don't put myself in situations that would have hostility visiting my
house, live in a good neighborhood, keep my house secure and figure
that I can use my brains to get my family out of trouble if need be. I
would certainly take another's life by whatever means available or
sacrafice my own if my wife or kids were threatened.

I don't live my life scared of the boogeyman.



Bertiepoop lives in a safe neighborhood, but those Tea Party/Bircher
meetings he attends...anyone can get shot there. :)