|
Had to share this story
In article ,
says... On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote: Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant. Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the tracking of sales/transfers. Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to make the buyer fill out the form. BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They still move around. I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. BTW, despite your contention otherwise, some of the Columbine weapons were illegally purchased at a Colorado gun show. If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they love, registration and background checks mean nothing. Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used. Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. |
Had to share this story
In article ,
says... On 11/1/2014 1:50 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:53:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: That's why the show is interesting. It goes into that sort of stuff. It's not a liberal political thing like the rest of the MSNBC programing. I have no interest in watching a prison reality show. I spent plenty of time in the prisons when I was inspecting and a little bit of that kind of reality goes a long way. That's why the show is worth seeing once in a while for those of us who have never seen the inside of a jail or prison. Most of the inmates have a totally different outlook on society and life in general and it's a way of thinking that most of us cannot fathom. I've watched it, and never more than 5 minutes, but it didn't teach me anything I didn't know. It's probably the cheapest show to produce on MSNBC. I don't quite understand why it's still in production, but that channel is full of questionable programming decisions. It's seems the show is running for many hours around the weekend, and I don't like spending my time in prison with low-lifes. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. === One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen. Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns in the first place? |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:48:27 -0400, BAR wrote:
Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and step back. === That means the RSO (Range Safety Officer) is not doing their job. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:48:27 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/1/2014 11:44 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:58:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. I have never bought a gun with a case in the box. I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact. I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same? Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun? Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory. It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock. Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere? Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there. The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10 year old with a fingernail file could pop it off. I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial. I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key. No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we destroyed something (like the rifle). This thing is made of plastic. If I get a minute I will give this a look and see what the easiest way to get it off would be. Obviously I have tools in the garage that will take just about anything off. The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to prevent theft. 10 seconds with a side grinder? The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to furnish a lock. I still do not see the value. If your kid is going to be a problem around your gun, the trigger lock does not prevent access to the gun, they can play with the gun and the lock just becomes a puzzle for him and his friends. When I google how to remove a trigger lock I get hits for the various brands. Most seem to be destructive of the lock but if you stole the gun, so what? I would also be curious how hard it is to simply pick the lock. The one I have looks pretty trivial but I did not spend any time really looking at it. I'll repeat again. The locks are *NOT* designed to prevent or even dissuade theft. They are to help prevent accidental discharge. The ones I have been supplied are not cheap plastic either. The trigger lock is metal and would take anyone a while to figure out how to get it off without the key. A kid that found it in the house (if you were stupid enough to leave it laying around) isn't going to get it off in 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours. 10 seconds is a generous amount of time. The standard trigger lock regarless of what is it made of is very easy to get off of a firearm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfYCCEH0Y4 The range I shoot at provides cheap plastic chamber "locks". You are supposed to insert them and lay your gun down on the firing table whenever the range is down while someone is placing targets, etc. Are you talking about a chamber lock or a chamber block. The chamber block is effective ini letting people know that the chamber lock is in the firearm and if properly inserted will show that the firearm has no round in the chamber. Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and step back. Most people will drop the magazine and lock the slide to the rear leaving the chamber open. After I am doen firing the rounds in the mag, I drop the magazine, visually check the chamber and then put the firearm down and lay it on its left side. If you ever shoot at Quantico, be sure to take the chamber blocks. They will not let you put the gun down and clear your position without one in the chamber. |
Had to share this story
On 11/1/2014 2:23 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. === One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen. Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns in the first place? Democrats get to decide. Maybe we can get the same friendly folks from the IRS who decided who got free speech during the last two election cycles. That ought to please, well, at least 51% of the pouplation :) |
Had to share this story
On 11/1/2014 12:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/1/2014 11:44 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:58:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. I have never bought a gun with a case in the box. I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact. I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same? Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun? Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory. It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock. Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere? Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there. The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10 year old with a fingernail file could pop it off. I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial. I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key. No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we destroyed something (like the rifle). This thing is made of plastic. If I get a minute I will give this a look and see what the easiest way to get it off would be. Obviously I have tools in the garage that will take just about anything off. The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to prevent theft. 10 seconds with a side grinder? The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to furnish a lock. I still do not see the value. If your kid is going to be a problem around your gun, the trigger lock does not prevent access to the gun, they can play with the gun and the lock just becomes a puzzle for him and his friends. When I google how to remove a trigger lock I get hits for the various brands. Most seem to be destructive of the lock but if you stole the gun, so what? I would also be curious how hard it is to simply pick the lock. The one I have looks pretty trivial but I did not spend any time really looking at it. I'll repeat again. The locks are *NOT* designed to prevent or even dissuade theft. They are to help prevent accidental discharge. We agree on that, locks only keep honest people honest like my dad used to say. The ones I have been supplied are not cheap plastic either. The trigger lock is metal and would take anyone a while to figure out how to get it off without the key. A kid that found it in the house (if you were stupid enough to leave it laying around) isn't going to get it off in 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours. Again, I agree. Youtube all you want, then try it. I tried to Youtube a lock for our trailer, the technique, perfectly applied failed miserably. When I was a kid I decided that since I kept losing house keys, I would just make a pic set and learn to pick the locks around the house. I was always pretty good with tools and such, had a friend who helped me make the tools (his dad did locksmithing) but never actually had success with a 5 pin houselock and rakepick.... Furthermore, I suggest if somebody thinks Youtube is so good, look up starting fires without matches then go into the wilderness without matches and see how it goes.. it's just not as easy as it is edited to look... My dad was a scoutmaster, I got to the rank of Life and camped all of my life. I do not remember actually ever being successful with "rubbing two sticks together" even though I know how to do it.... The range I shoot at provides cheap plastic chamber "locks". You are supposed to insert them and lay your gun down on the firing table whenever the range is down while someone is placing targets, etc. Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and step back. That is unacceptable and pretty stupid of the range operator, negligent at it's worst. Seriously, take a cell phone pic of that to protect yourself or someone else in case of accident. It's like safety flagging a race. When I run a crew, cell phones are not allowed on the track cause if one person catches even a random shot of a flagger on the phone reading a text on raceday and someone gets hurt on the track that day, we could be ****ed. Doesn't matter if the race was even going on when the flagger was looking at the screen cause really, you may not be able to prove that from a photo, but the plaintiff could easily prove a flagger was pre-occupied during the race... and that would be low hanging fruit for any jury... |
Had to share this story
On 11/1/2014 1:48 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/1/2014 11:44 AM, wrote: On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:58:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 1:44 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:19:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 8:49 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Raises another question. Ever wonder why a new gun comes with a spent shell in the box or case? To test functionality. And/Or, to build a database of gun "fingerprints", i.e. bullet striations. That info, along with registration, can lead back to the owner. I have never bought a gun with a case in the box. I do question the validity of all of these ballistic fingerprint things if the gun has been used a lot. I agree that if they have the gun and a recently fired bullet or case, they usually can match them up but if this gun has several thousand rounds of barrel erosion and the slings and arrows of dirty ammo going through it, matching up tool marks from the day it was made is going to be far from exact. I bet the difference between S/N xxxxx1 and xxxxx2 brand new is less than xxxx1 to xxxx1 after years of hard use. If the same tool cut the rifling, won't the tool marks be very close to the same? Interesting. When was the last time you bought a new gun? Every gun I have purchased in the past 3-4 years has an envelope with a spent round casing that was fired from the gun at the factory. It's also mandatory that new guns come with some type of lock. Is this a MA thing or is it true everywhere? Certainly does not seem to be true in Florida. Maybe the dealers just remove it if the manufacturer puts them in there. The 9mm I bought recently had a trigger lock but it is a joke. A 10 year old with a fingernail file could pop it off. I'd like to see a trigger lock like that. The ones I have (gun manufacturer supplied) are pretty well made and substantial. I took the Ruger 10/22 to the range once and forgot the key. No way could I or anyone else remove the trigger lock unless we destroyed something (like the rifle). This thing is made of plastic. If I get a minute I will give this a look and see what the easiest way to get it off would be. Obviously I have tools in the garage that will take just about anything off. The chamber locks supplied by the gun manufacturers are also pretty high quality. Sure, maybe a heavy bolt cutter or half an hour with a hack saw would work but again, the purpose of a trigger or chamber lock is to help prevent accidental discharge of the firearm by the owner or an inquisitive visitor when stored in your home. They are not designed to prevent theft. 10 seconds with a side grinder? The locks are *required* ... again by law. Even if you purchase a used firearm from a licensed dealer up here, the dealer is required to furnish a lock. I still do not see the value. If your kid is going to be a problem around your gun, the trigger lock does not prevent access to the gun, they can play with the gun and the lock just becomes a puzzle for him and his friends. When I google how to remove a trigger lock I get hits for the various brands. Most seem to be destructive of the lock but if you stole the gun, so what? I would also be curious how hard it is to simply pick the lock. The one I have looks pretty trivial but I did not spend any time really looking at it. I'll repeat again. The locks are *NOT* designed to prevent or even dissuade theft. They are to help prevent accidental discharge. The ones I have been supplied are not cheap plastic either. The trigger lock is metal and would take anyone a while to figure out how to get it off without the key. A kid that found it in the house (if you were stupid enough to leave it laying around) isn't going to get it off in 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours. 10 seconds is a generous amount of time. The standard trigger lock regarless of what is it made of is very easy to get off of a firearm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfYCCEH0Y4 I don't know but it almost seems the lock is designed that way ... meaning there's a relatively easy method of taking it off if you lose the key (if you know how to do it). A kid or someone who doesn't know how to do it isn't going to get it off in 10 seconds. Even the guy in the video didn't. Point again is: They are made to help prevent accidental discharge ... not theft. |
Had to share this story
On 11/1/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:48:27 -0400, BAR wrote: Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and step back. === That means the RSO (Range Safety Officer) is not doing their job. The only time I've seen one of the RSO's walking around is on weekends when the range is fairly busy. During the weekdays there is rarely one around. The range isn't busy either. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Saturday, November 1, 2014 3:29:28 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. === One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen. Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns in the first place? Lawmakers write the laws, last I heard. Vote for the ones you like, and live with it. You sound like someone who's never stood up for anything you beleive in. "Casual" gun ownership is dangerous. Strict gun laws save lives. It doesn't work in Chicago. Cite? If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment rights" you don't deserve them. Occasionally you almost get something right. "If you don't stand up for your rights, you don't deserve them". There, I fixed it for you. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment rights" you don't deserve them. === That's a bit twisted in my opinion. The 2nd ammendment doesn't say anything about a requirement to "jump through hoops." The entire Bill of Rights, of which the 2A is a part, was added as a remedy to citizen concerns regarding past governmental abuses. If we as citizens do not continually push back on infringements to those rights, then we deserve to lose them. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:31:07 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote: If you ever shoot at Quantico, be sure to take the chamber blocks. They will not let you put the gun down and clear your position without one in the chamber. === Same at my range, at least during formal events. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/1/2014 2:25 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 13:48:27 -0400, BAR wrote: Not too many people insert them. They just lay the gun on the table and step back. === That means the RSO (Range Safety Officer) is not doing their job. The only time I've seen one of the RSO's walking around is on weekends when the range is fairly busy. During the weekdays there is rarely one around. The range isn't busy either. My range has RSOs on duty constantly - in a glassed-in room right behind the firing lines. If one of them sees a problem he's at the lane getting it corrected. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. === One man's "marginal person" is another man's fine, upstanding citizen. Who gets to decide - some government bureaucrat who may not like guns in the first place? Lawmakers write the laws, last I heard. Vote for the ones you like, and live with it. By "marginal" I'm simply talking about non-gun nuts who won't go to the trouble to comply, so won't get their hands on guns. Their call. It won't stop the gun nuts. They can have their guns. "Casual" gun ownership is dangerous. Strict gun laws save lives. Let the gun nuts and cops take care of the bad guys. If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment rights" you don't deserve them. More horse**** from the cognoscenti. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:48:03 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment rights" you don't deserve them. I could say the same about voting. I've been hinting about that throughout this discussion. No one will bite. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:04:16 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:38:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 1:18 AM, wrote: Felons are unlikely to sign any kind of transfer form, that is the express train to the slammer, so I am not sure that is even relevant. Greg, you are therefore making the case *for* gun registration and the tracking of sales/transfers. Only if you believe the only people who sell guns would be willing to make the buyer fill out the form. BAO contended a while ago that most of the crime guns were stolen. It is clear that they would never go through legal channels again. They still move around. I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? BTW, despite your contention otherwise, some of the Columbine weapons were illegally purchased at a Colorado gun show. One in a row, what about the rest of them? Didn't you just say "Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns" If you are just talking about nuts and people shooting the ones they love, registration and background checks mean nothing. Until they snap, they will be fine upstanding citizens who would pass any background check and after they go on their shooting spree, there is no problem figuring out who did it or what gun they used. Gun registration does little in solving crimes; it reduces it. Keeps the guns in the hands of fewer people. Make it a big hassle to own a gun, and "marginal" people are less likely to get their hands on one. Simple as that. No, they are just more likely to get one from the gray/black market. You are starting to sound like those people who want to quarantine everyone because of ebola. You want to punish 40 million gun owners because a few thousand of them killed someone and most of them were in the underworld anyway, beyond the reach of these laws. BTW who are the "marginal" people? Blacks and Latinos? (statistically most likely to murder or be murdered) You will be smoking a turd in liberal purgatory for that one. That wasn't me! I said nothing about 'marginal' people. I'm guessing the definition of marginal gun owners are those who use them to commit crime - Amen. |
Had to share this story
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:08:27 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:36:40 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:48:03 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 14:29:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: If you won't jump through some hoops to exercise you "2nd Amendment rights" you don't deserve them. I could say the same about voting. I've been hinting about that throughout this discussion. No one will bite. That is something that always bothered me. We managed to elect everyone from Washington to Lincoln to Reagan with the polls only being open on the first tuesday in november and you had to get there on your own. Now suddenly people think they should be able to vote in their underwear at home. ....several times...in several places...with several names. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. === I think that's relatively easy: Any person who is legally entitled to own a gun, and using a gun that they legally own (not stolen or borrowed without permission). |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 9:05 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. === I think that's relatively easy: Any person who is legally entitled to own a gun, and using a gun that they legally own (not stolen or borrowed without permission). That works I guess. Obviously the laws that make it "legal" vary from state to state. BTW ... your Nor'ester is presently dumping heavy snow up here. :-( |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. |
Had to share this story
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:05:40 AM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. === I think that's relatively easy: Any person who is legally entitled to own a gun, and using a gun that they legally own (not stolen or borrowed without permission). BOA is playing with words. Virtually all guns are initially legally purchased. However, I've seen no evidence that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners with their legally purchased guns. That's BS. |
Had to share this story
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:29:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Well, not quite. "Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state "point of contact" and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.) South Carolina is not a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks.1 In South Carolina, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly. Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.2 As a result, concealable weapons permit holders in South Carolina are exempt from the federal background check requirement..3 (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or carry firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.). South Carolina law states that a person must be a resident of South Carolina to purchase a handgun from a South Carolina dealer, and that the possession of a valid South Carolina driver's license or Department of Motor Vehicles identification card constitutes proof of residency.4 A dealer may not sell a handgun without clear evidence as to the identity of the purchaser being furnished to the dealer.5 South Carolina does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm." So, that reads to me that I must be a resident, and will have a background check done on me unless I am a concealed permit holder. Should I have to take a safety course to get a permit to buy a gun? I'm on the fence with that. One thing is for sure... requiring that would not have any effect on gun crimes. Criminals don't get permits or care about safety, right? |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 10:02 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? No I don't, but in that case how do you justify the federal laws that prohibits those with a felony conviction from legally owning a firearm or not being able to vote if you are in prison, on parole or on probation? I support the idea of having background checks for gun ownership. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 10:00 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:05:40 AM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. === I think that's relatively easy: Any person who is legally entitled to own a gun, and using a gun that they legally own (not stolen or borrowed without permission). BOA is playing with words. Virtually all guns are initially legally purchased. However, I've seen no evidence that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners with their legally purchased guns. That's BS. Maybe he can post a cite that supports his claim. I've looked. Can't find any. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 10:35:46 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/2/2014 10:12 AM, wrote: On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:29:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Well, not quite. "Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state "point of contact" and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.) South Carolina is not a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks.1 In South Carolina, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly. Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.2 As a result, concealable weapons permit holders in South Carolina are exempt from the federal background check requirement.3 (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or carry firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.). South Carolina law states that a person must be a resident of South Carolina to purchase a handgun from a South Carolina dealer, and that the possession of a valid South Carolina driver's license or Department of Motor Vehicles identification card constitutes proof of residency.4 A dealer may not sell a handgun without clear evidence as to the identity of the purchaser being furnished to the dealer.5 South Carolina does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm." So, that reads to me that I must be a resident, and will have a background check done on me unless I am a concealed permit holder. Should I have to take a safety course to get a permit to buy a gun? I'm on the fence with that. One thing is for sure... requiring that would not have any effect on gun crimes. Criminals don't get permits or care about safety, right? I asked my son about this a while back after he moved to SC. He seemed to think all you needed was a driver's license to prove residency. He had a concealed carry permit here in MA but he didn't bother getting one in SC. He said you can have a handgun in your car in the glove compartment or center console without a concealed carry permit. From what you've said it sounds like a SC dealer does an "instant" background check at the time of purchase like they do in Florida. You and your son are correct, at least with my understanding of the state laws. This website has some really good info. It might be helpful especially since you are considering a move to our fine state! http://www.charlestonlaw.net/handgun-carry-laws-south-carolina/ If you do move down here, I think you'll enjoy it. Great weather while still retaining the four seasons, and the Charleston area is nice and has some really outstanding restaurants. The natives are nice too! |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 10:24 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:02:30 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? BAO is certainly a fascist (in the classical sense) He sees no real limit to government power, even implying he thinks you should need to be finger printed and submit to a background check before you can vote. I doubt Richard would agree with that but then he is simply cherry picking the rights we are entitled to without infringement. I don't see a background check as being an infringement on your right to buy or own a firearm. The concept of a nationwide computerized data base was unfathomable when the Bill of Rights was written. By virtue of getting a permit it means you had a background check performed. What I'd really like to see is some standardization and uniformity of the gun laws throughout the country. In some states, like mine, the determination of granting a permit and what type comes down to the police chief in the town or city you live in. Massachusetts used to be a "may issue" state for all types of permits with the determination left up to the local police department chief. That was changed to "shall issue" for permits that do not allow concealed carry and "may issue" for concealed carry. There was a time when it was difficult to get any type of gun permit because it was all up to the local (town) government and police department. There are still a couple of towns that are trying to stay "gun free zones". |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 10:35:46 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/2/2014 10:12 AM, wrote: On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:29:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Well, not quite. "Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state "point of contact" and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.) South Carolina is not a point of contact state for firearm purchaser background checks.1 In South Carolina, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly. Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.2 As a result, concealable weapons permit holders in South Carolina are exempt from the federal background check requirement.3 (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or carry firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.). South Carolina law states that a person must be a resident of South Carolina to purchase a handgun from a South Carolina dealer, and that the possession of a valid South Carolina driver's license or Department of Motor Vehicles identification card constitutes proof of residency.4 A dealer may not sell a handgun without clear evidence as to the identity of the purchaser being furnished to the dealer.5 South Carolina does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm." So, that reads to me that I must be a resident, and will have a background check done on me unless I am a concealed permit holder. Should I have to take a safety course to get a permit to buy a gun? I'm on the fence with that. One thing is for sure... requiring that would not have any effect on gun crimes. Criminals don't get permits or care about safety, right? I asked my son about this a while back after he moved to SC. He seemed to think all you needed was a driver's license to prove residency. He had a concealed carry permit here in MA but he didn't bother getting one in SC. He said you can have a handgun in your car in the glove compartment or center console without a concealed carry permit. From what you've said it sounds like a SC dealer does an "instant" background check at the time of purchase like they do in Florida. You and your son are correct, at least with my understanding of the state laws. This website has some really good info. It might be helpful especially since you are considering a move to our fine state! http://www.charlestonlaw.net/handgun-carry-laws-south-carolina/ If you do move down here, I think you'll enjoy it. Great weather while still retaining the four seasons, and the Charleston area is nice and has some really outstanding restaurants. The natives are nice too! My son and his family moved down there about 2 and a half years ago. They have two girls, (one 16, one 10 or 11) and 3 year old twins ... a boy and a girl. All of them love it down there. Of all things, he decided to buy an existing liqueur store in the Mt. Pleasant area where he lives. It was run down and not doing that well so he applied and received the licenses required, bought the place and completely renovated it. He turned it into more of a high-end, boutique place with a sports theme and the place has become very popular, both for locals and for boaters on the ICW looking to "stock up". His place has won awards for the selection of booze available, the service and it's unique atmosphere. Last year he was able to lease an adjoining space and opened it exclusively for wine sales. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 11:28 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:06:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 10:24 AM, wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:02:30 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? BAO is certainly a fascist (in the classical sense) He sees no real limit to government power, even implying he thinks you should need to be finger printed and submit to a background check before you can vote. I doubt Richard would agree with that but then he is simply cherry picking the rights we are entitled to without infringement. I don't see a background check as being an infringement on your right to buy or own a firearm. The concept of a nationwide computerized data base was unfathomable when the Bill of Rights was written. By virtue of getting a permit it means you had a background check performed. What I'd really like to see is some standardization and uniformity of the gun laws throughout the country. In some states, like mine, the determination of granting a permit and what type comes down to the police chief in the town or city you live in. Massachusetts used to be a "may issue" state for all types of permits with the determination left up to the local police department chief. That was changed to "shall issue" for permits that do not allow concealed carry and "may issue" for concealed carry. There was a time when it was difficult to get any type of gun permit because it was all up to the local (town) government and police department. There are still a couple of towns that are trying to stay "gun free zones". I would contend that most of the country has very little in common with the Northern Atlantic states. That is why we had a limited federal government in the first place. Laws that seem to make perfect sense to people in Boston, New York or New Haven sound ridiculous in Butte or Boise So, you're saying that "PaPy" in Boise still hands a .22 rifle to 9 year old "Jr" and tells him, "I'm a'grumblin. Go fetch us some viddles while I stoke up the stove"? |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 11:07 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/2/2014 10:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? No I don't, but in that case how do you justify the federal laws that prohibits those with a felony conviction from legally owning a firearm or not being able to vote if you are in prison, on parole or on probation? Why shouldn't a person who has served their time (prison, parole or probation) for a conviction have his rights restored? If evidence of previous bad acts can't be used to convict someone why should the same apply with respect to rights. I support the idea of having background checks for gun ownership. Do you support the idea of having background checks for casting votes? Why do you treat some rights differently than other rights? Voting and owning a gun are two different things, don'cha think? Come to think of it, I don't know which is more dangerous. -) BTW .. While in prison a convict cannot vote. While he/she is is on parole or probation ... they cannot vote. Once a sentence is served or a parole/probation period is completed, their right to vote is restored. Federal law. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 10:20:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 10:00 AM, wrote: On Sunday, November 2, 2014 9:05:40 AM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. === I think that's relatively easy: Any person who is legally entitled to own a gun, and using a gun that they legally own (not stolen or borrowed without permission). BOA is playing with words. Virtually all guns are initially legally purchased. However, I've seen no evidence that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners with their legally purchased guns. That's BS. Maybe he can post a cite that supports his claim. I've looked. Can't find any. That's what I asked for! |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:46:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 11:07 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 10:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? No I don't, but in that case how do you justify the federal laws that prohibits those with a felony conviction from legally owning a firearm or not being able to vote if you are in prison, on parole or on probation? Why shouldn't a person who has served their time (prison, parole or probation) for a conviction have his rights restored? If evidence of previous bad acts can't be used to convict someone why should the same apply with respect to rights. I support the idea of having background checks for gun ownership. Do you support the idea of having background checks for casting votes? Why do you treat some rights differently than other rights? Voting and owning a gun are two different things, don'cha think? Come to think of it, I don't know which is more dangerous. -) BTW .. While in prison a convict cannot vote. While he/she is is on parole or probation ... they cannot vote. Once a sentence is served or a parole/probation period is completed, their right to vote is restored. Federal law. Are you talking about legal or illegal convicts? :) |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:39:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 11:28 AM, wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:06:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 10:24 AM, wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 10:02:30 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 9:11 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 08:07:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:00 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 20:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 12:15:27 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I never said that. I said the opposite. Most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns. Stolen guns are a very small percentage. You've mistaken me for Basskisser. OK perhaps but what are you calling "gun crimes". Are you talking about acquaintance killings or are you talking about drug killings, robberies gone bad and gang violence? Gun crimes by legal gun owners. I would sure like to see some proof that most gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. Define "legal" gun owners. What he said ...'most gun crimes are done with legally purchased guns'...and then...'gun crimes by legal gun owners'. I'm thinking that if I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't want to use one that's traceable back to me. If I had to use one that was traceable to me, then it would be somewhere in the Potomac when I was finished with it. The Chicago Tribune reports 440 murders in Chicago in 2013. You reckon most of those were committed by 'legal gun owners'? And then throw in Flint, New Orleans, Detroit, and Jackson. Most murders committed by legal gun owners? I find it hard to believe most crimes involving guns are committed by legal gun owners but then again, I don't know what "legal" means in the areas you mentioned. legal adj., adv. according to law, not in violation of law or anything related to the law. For example, I've looked at the gun laws in South Carolina. All you have to do is prove you are a resident and you can buy a gun. No permit, no license, no safety course. Nothing. A permit is required if you want to conceal carry however. Do you believe that people should have to ask and receive permission from the government to exercise their rights before they exercise their rights? BAO is certainly a fascist (in the classical sense) He sees no real limit to government power, even implying he thinks you should need to be finger printed and submit to a background check before you can vote. I doubt Richard would agree with that but then he is simply cherry picking the rights we are entitled to without infringement. I don't see a background check as being an infringement on your right to buy or own a firearm. The concept of a nationwide computerized data base was unfathomable when the Bill of Rights was written. By virtue of getting a permit it means you had a background check performed. What I'd really like to see is some standardization and uniformity of the gun laws throughout the country. In some states, like mine, the determination of granting a permit and what type comes down to the police chief in the town or city you live in. Massachusetts used to be a "may issue" state for all types of permits with the determination left up to the local police department chief. That was changed to "shall issue" for permits that do not allow concealed carry and "may issue" for concealed carry. There was a time when it was difficult to get any type of gun permit because it was all up to the local (town) government and police department. There are still a couple of towns that are trying to stay "gun free zones". I would contend that most of the country has very little in common with the Northern Atlantic states. That is why we had a limited federal government in the first place. Laws that seem to make perfect sense to people in Boston, New York or New Haven sound ridiculous in Butte or Boise So, you're saying that "PaPy" in Boise still hands a .22 rifle to 9 year old "Jr" and tells him, "I'm a'grumblin. Go fetch us some viddles while I stoke up the stove"? I was a tad older, 12, when I'd bring rabbits and squirrels home a couple times a week for dinner. Believe it, it's done. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com