|
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 12:26 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:25:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. He must have had a good businessman for a dad. Nah, he's is own man and a far better businessman than I could ever dream to be. I was a technocrat. BTW, his store in SC just won "Best in Mt. Pleasant" by some state grading organization. People who know our family get a kick out of our two sons. The oldest (the one in SC) got all the Italian genes from his mother. (not to profile anyone ... have to be politically correct now-a-days) He's a people person and loves being around lots of them. Has the gift for gab as they say. Smart as a whip though. The other one inherited my family's Scandinavian traits. He's blond, blue-eyed and very reserved in a crowd. More of an introvert but very sharp in technology and electronics. Has a fantastic sense of humor but it's very dry and his joking comments are often missed by some until they think about it a bit. My daughter (the oldest) shares both of my wife and my personality traits equally. Of the three she is the most practical, down to earth and sensible. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:11:08 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:39:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 11:28 AM, wrote: 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"? It would certainly not be unreasonable for a 9 year old to get a .22 that would be used under supervision for a few years but by the time they were 14 or so they would have a hunting license. That was when I got my first one and I lived within a mile of the DC line, inside what is the beltway now. There was excellent quail hunting in the area south and west of where exit #3 is now. It was an anti aircraft base in the 40s and even into the early 50s, then it was a huge open field. The whole area between exit 3 and 4 was woods. So was the area south of Forest Heights all the way to the river on both sides of the beltway ROW. That is thousands of acres. Looking at google there still seems to be a lot of woods there north of the ROW. I doubt you can hunt there now ;-) Used to do a lot of quail hunting out Hwy 50 north of I-66. In the early 70's that was all farm land. Got a lot of birds out there. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:39:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 11:28 AM, wrote: 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"? It would certainly not be unreasonable for a 9 year old to get a .22 that would be used under supervision for a few years but by the time they were 14 or so they would have a hunting license. That was when I got my first one and I lived within a mile of the DC line, inside what is the beltway now. There was excellent quail hunting in the area south and west of where exit #3 is now. It was an anti aircraft base in the 40s and even into the early 50s, then it was a huge open field. The whole area between exit 3 and 4 was woods. So was the area south of Forest Heights all the way to the river on both sides of the beltway ROW. That is thousands of acres. Looking at google there still seems to be a lot of woods there north of the ROW. I doubt you can hunt there now ;-) I shot a bird with a Daisey BB gun when I was about 8 years old and immediately felt like ****. Never got into hunting but I don't begrudge those who do. I am surrounded by animal lovers. I was teasing my daughter one day, telling her I was going to go deer hunting when the season opened up here. She was all over me. So I asked her where she thought meat like beef, etc., comes from. "The supermarket", she said. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:20:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/2/2014 1:11 PM, wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:39:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 11:28 AM, wrote: 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"? It would certainly not be unreasonable for a 9 year old to get a .22 that would be used under supervision for a few years but by the time they were 14 or so they would have a hunting license. That was when I got my first one and I lived within a mile of the DC line, inside what is the beltway now. There was excellent quail hunting in the area south and west of where exit #3 is now. It was an anti aircraft base in the 40s and even into the early 50s, then it was a huge open field. The whole area between exit 3 and 4 was woods. So was the area south of Forest Heights all the way to the river on both sides of the beltway ROW. That is thousands of acres. Looking at google there still seems to be a lot of woods there north of the ROW. I doubt you can hunt there now ;-) I shot a bird with a Daisey BB gun when I was about 8 years old and immediately felt like ****. Never got into hunting but I don't begrudge those who do. I am surrounded by animal lovers. I was teasing my daughter one day, telling her I was going to go deer hunting when the season opened up here. She was all over me. So I asked her where she thought meat like beef, etc., comes from. "The supermarket", she said. Eating the bird may have given you a different perspective. Fried quail are really good. Not much to it past the breast, but the legs are worth knawing. It takes quite a few to make a decent meal. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:13:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: BTW ... your Nor'ester is presently dumping heavy snow up here. :-( === How's the wind? Some places got a lot and sustained quite a bit of tree damage if the leaves had not yet fallen. Did you ever get the GFS forecast model working? I find it nice to not be dependent on the mass media forecasts. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 3:13 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:13:07 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: BTW ... your Nor'ester is presently dumping heavy snow up here. :-( === How's the wind? Some places got a lot and sustained quite a bit of tree damage if the leaves had not yet fallen. Did you ever get the GFS forecast model working? I find it nice to not be dependent on the mass media forecasts. Very strong winds earlier today but everything has calmed down now. I was sorta hoping it would stay around for the Patriots/Denver game in Foxboro but now it just looks drizzly and cold. Haven't had any luck yet with the GFS but I haven't given up. I need to go back and check to make sure I downloaded the correct version for this computer. I remember seeing something about a specific version for Vista. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:27:50 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? |
Had to share this story
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:00:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule by some. But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the opponent. === No ridicule from me. I just think your wrong and told you why. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 5:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:27:50 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 17:39:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. === Jim Hertvik maybe? I believe he was from Ohio near the Vermillion River and Lake Erie. |
Had to share this story
says... On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:00:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some reasonable controls be considered results in condemnation and ridicule by some. But what else is new? If you can't debate the subject ridicule the opponent. === No ridicule from me. I just think your wrong and told you why. Yeah, I know. My post was poorly worded by saying "this discussion". I was thinking more generally with regard to the national debate and media comments, not really those here in rec.boats. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 5:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 17:39:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. === Jim Hertvik maybe? I believe he was from Ohio near the Vermillion River and Lake Erie. No, not Hertvik although I remember him. It was a Jim and he was from Florida. I could be wrong about it being BOA though. He just has a very similar style of posting and oozed the same kind of "attitude". |
Had to share this story
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:11:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:
They are all just Kevin to me ;-) The real Kevin is on FB. He's just as Kevin on there as he was here. |
Had to share this story
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:53:11 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/2/2014 5:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:27:50 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. That Jim, didn't he banish himself after he misused a telephone? That was Jim Hertvik - from Ohio, I think. |
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 8:58 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:53:11 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 5:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:27:50 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. That Jim, didn't he banish himself after he misused a telephone? That was Jim Hertvik - from Ohio, I think. Hertvik isn't the "Jim" I am referring to. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 11/2/2014 9:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 21:04:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/2/2014 8:58 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 17:53:11 -0500, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/2/2014 5:26 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:27:50 -0500, Poco Loco wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 15:18:16 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:29:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === I don't think it's legal for a convicted felon to own a gun anywhere, and I suspect (but don't know) that most gun crimes are committed by those with prior convictions. Well, I'd find it hard to believe that Boating All Out was actually *wrong* about something. === Do we know what part of the country BAO is from? I may be completely wrong about this but I think he's in Florida. I also think he used to post here under another name ... and I think his first name is Jim. Not FlaJim .. another Jim. I remember a "Jim" who wrote posts in the same style and manner. Bunch of very short sentences, rapid fire. That Jim, didn't he banish himself after he misused a telephone? That was Jim Hertvik - from Ohio, I think. Hertvik isn't the "Jim" I am referring to. All of these anonymous people are Kevin to me. It is just a generic name for anyone who doesn't value his own opinion enough to sign it. Except that if krause isn't dead, you know it's him. I am thinking he made an agreement with some sucker here and of course typical krause, he isn't keeping it. |
Had to share this story
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. BTW I am not really sure that is true. I think we may have the Nancy Reagan syndrome working here. When a pollster asks if people have a gun, they just say no. If we go back to why the NRA was founded, was because there was low ownership of rifles, and when the war started, was a major problem to get people trained. |
Had to share this story
Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:54:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 3:40:00 PM UTC-4, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, wrote: These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars with collision avoidance systems trip them. Not really. The newer detectors are *much* smarter, and the adaptive cruise controls and collision avoidance systems don't even register on them. This is the one I have: https://www.escortradar.com/PassportMax2/ Dies it really help that much these days with the triggered guns and the lasers? Since I left Maryland, the speed trap capital of the world, I really have not been paying much attention Yes and no. With the instant-on or pulse guns, you're depending on it being used on someone traveling in front of you so you get the alert. You have to be pretty close to the gun for it to measure your speed, but the detector can pick it up from a very long distance. Even if they don't clock someone first, if you are quick enough with the brakes you may still knock enough off before it locks in to avoid a ticket. With laser you're hoping to get a scattered laser signal when they clock someone else. Good news is that they must be stationary and can't shoot you through a closed window. Laser, at least around here, is rare. So they do work, but you have to be vigilant and pay attention to traffic and your situation. Hey, that sounds like driving, at least what you're supposed to do! Bottom line, you can't set your speed at 20 over and blindly drive like the old days of X and K band that was always on. Personally, I never go any faster than I'm willing to get caught for. Well, most of the time... I'm a 10%'er. Add 10% to the limit and set the cruise control. Has always worked, although I get passed a lot. The speed limit is 3 mph less than the fast cars. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 2:36 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 11:17 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:52:28 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:16:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life. === When I was young and driving old beat up cars, I used to experience a fair number of trumped up harassment stops. When I was able to afford newer cars it stopped. I suspect it also happens a lot with minority drivers because cops believe there is an increased likelihood of finding something amiss. A lot of these profile stops happen to minority drivers but in some places they will harass everyone. (within 100 miles of the Mexican border) Rich looking white people, driving around in "normal" hours, generally are left alone When I was working 3d shift, I was stopped a lot for pretty much nothing until all of the Monkey County cops got to know me. Back in the mid 1980's four of us dressed in business suits were traveling on I-95 in a dark blue Lincoln Town Car that was owned by my boss. I've forgotten if it was in New York or New Jersey. We were on our way to a business meeting with a customer. A State cop pulled us over, peered at all of us, asked my boss for his license and registration and went back to his car to "run" the plate and license info. He then came up to the car, handed the license and registration back, pointed at the windshield rear view mirror and told my boss that he pulled us over because of a device he saw on it. He said he thought it was a radar detector (apparently illegal in whatever state we were in). It was actually a sensor for a automatic headlight dimming system. I thought DC and Virginia were the only states near there with a radar detector ban but who knows? These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars with collision avoidance systems trip them. It was in the mid 1980's. I don't know what the laws are now. For giggles and something to play with, I just bought a 1988 Lincoln Town Car. It's in very good condition with 90K miles. I bought it for cheap bucks because the seller said it had an issue with the anti-theft system that shut down the ignition and electrical systems every once in a while when you went to start it. He had one of those battery disconnect switches on the negative terminal and told me that when it happens to just loosen the knob to disconnect the battery and then turn it back in. He said it "reset" the system. Turns out it had nothing to do with the anti-theft system at all. The disconnect switch contact areas were completely pitted and corroded so electrical contact was minimal. Loosening and tightening it again would temporarily re-establish the connection but after a few starts it would oxidize and die again. Took the disconnect switch apart, cleaned it up and burnished it. Haven't had a problem since. Car is a boat. It's like driving a couch down the road. Talk about extremes. Going back and forth from a F-250 Super Duty to the Town Car boat takes some adjustment. In the 80's Budget Rent a car would upgrade us to the Town Car. Hated those things. Would have been OK if driving long distances on the highway, but a QE2 boat around town. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:06 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 06:26:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:18:35 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote: I've not seen a whole lot of fighting over background checks. Are you serious? You apparently have a short memory. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/background-checks-bill_n_3103341.html What I beleive he meant is that the American public hasn't been railing against background checks. Your linked article even points out that the measure had a 90% public approval rating. It was the politicians that didn't get the job done. They really do not explain what "universal background check" means. If they explained that I could not give my wife a shotgun for christmas without her submitting to a background check and having a federally licensed person do the "transfer", they might get a better feel for it. If I just buy the gun myself and give it to her with a bow on it under the tree, I am a "straw buyer" and she is an illegal gun owner. I think the main issue is making unreported sales of firearms at gun shows and similar venues. I remember one reporter who was able to buy anything he wanted at a show with no check, no questions asked. I saw the same or similar program. I think it was BS. The price they paid for the 3 firearms they purchased were a lot less than normal sales price. Either they were stolen or a setup. Maybe the TV people should have been prosecuted for circumventing the law. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 7:01 PM, Poco Loco wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45! Different issue. Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you own, illegal? Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment). You registered it, they know you have it. Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them. If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them. The rest of your post is pure conjecture. Fifty years ago many of the MA laws would have been 'pure conjecture' along with most of the recently passed MD laws. Maybe. But at some point in our human evolution we should say it's time to start doing something about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States I wonder which of the laws in either MA or MD would have prevented the school attacks. All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country. I guess I am not being clear. There's a growing anti-gun sentiment in this country. What I am saying is why not concede some minor and unimportant points ... like background checks and registration to appease the gun haters and take pressure off the politicians? The other option is to continue to demand your "rights" under the 2A and risk stronger laws, regulations and maybe eventually a new interpretation of what the word "infringe" means. It's called compromise. Dying art now-a-days. I think the anti gun sentiment is a lot less than you realize. What you are hearing and reading is from a very vocal, very liberal segment. The rest keep their mouths shut most of the time. |
Had to share this story
Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:30:48 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 9:23 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:52:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 7:47 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45! Different issue. Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you own, illegal? Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment). You registered it, they know you have it. Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them. If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them. But you can't sell them and in some places you can't even give them to your heirs. There are people who would push for laws that would not even grandfather them in. The rest of your post is pure conjecture. Conjecture based on other laws that have been passed. There is some ammo that was outlawed and if they catch you with it, you can be charged, no matter when you bought it. And many would agree rightly so. I think sometimes we forget that the majority of Americans do *not* own guns and that majority is growing. You can't have it one way, A minute ago you were talking about rights for minorities as a step forward. I noticed you dodged the answer about the bill of rights protections that we are losing and they are far more fundamental than gay marriage and a parking place close to the door. I didn't purposely dodge it. I didn't notice it. What was it again? Again I understand we may have created rights for some special interest groups that the founding fathers could have never envisioned but the ones in the Bill of Rights are under constant attack. I would start with attacks on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th amendments. ****** Just the 4th amendment problems There was a great one on the news tonight. FBI agents impersonated cable guys and did a search of a hotel room without a warrant and with that information they went back, got a warrant and raided the guys. This wasn't trying to stop a terrorist attack or catch a serial killer. It was arresting a bookie in Las Vegas. There was also a story about "border patrol" check points up to 100 miles from the border and they are using the same rules they use on the border (search you, search your car, ask questions you have no real obligation to answer etc) Of course you really have no rights on the side of the road anyway. The courts have chipped away at the 4th amendment to the point that a cop can stop you for no particular reason (always your word against his about why he stopped you) Make everyone get out of the car MARYLAND v. WILSON Question you without a Miranda warning BERKEMER v. McCARTY Search everyone and the passenger compartment of the car for weapons Terry v. Ohio They can "ask" you if they can search your trunk but if you say no, that is "reasonable suspicion" They can also detain you until they can get a dog there ILLINOIS v. CABALLES Then the kubuki theater starts. It is your word against the cop whether the dog "alerted". Hint, they always do. Then he has probable cause. If you resist in any way they can simply arrest you, maybe taze you, drench you with pepper spray and beat the **** out of you, impound your car, then they need to "inventory" it. (AKA rip it apart to be sure there was no hidden property they might get accused of stealing) You might just be shot and killed Who needs the gestapo when we have these guys Jesus Christ, you sound like a community organizer for criminals. Cops used to routinely jack people against cars for simple traffic stops, and answer any lip with a nightstick. They act much better now. It'll never be perfect. Seems paranoid to me. Fear the cops, huh? And you think this is lawful? Who is the criminal? |
Had to share this story
On 11/3/2014 8:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 2:36 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:57:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/31/2014 11:17 AM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:52:28 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 04:16:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I understand where you are coming from but I guess I just don't see a big threat to my freedom and rights. I am 65 and have never experienced any form of this kind of harassment. Maybe I live a boring life. === When I was young and driving old beat up cars, I used to experience a fair number of trumped up harassment stops. When I was able to afford newer cars it stopped. I suspect it also happens a lot with minority drivers because cops believe there is an increased likelihood of finding something amiss. A lot of these profile stops happen to minority drivers but in some places they will harass everyone. (within 100 miles of the Mexican border) Rich looking white people, driving around in "normal" hours, generally are left alone When I was working 3d shift, I was stopped a lot for pretty much nothing until all of the Monkey County cops got to know me. Back in the mid 1980's four of us dressed in business suits were traveling on I-95 in a dark blue Lincoln Town Car that was owned by my boss. I've forgotten if it was in New York or New Jersey. We were on our way to a business meeting with a customer. A State cop pulled us over, peered at all of us, asked my boss for his license and registration and went back to his car to "run" the plate and license info. He then came up to the car, handed the license and registration back, pointed at the windshield rear view mirror and told my boss that he pulled us over because of a device he saw on it. He said he thought it was a radar detector (apparently illegal in whatever state we were in). It was actually a sensor for a automatic headlight dimming system. I thought DC and Virginia were the only states near there with a radar detector ban but who knows? These days they are pretty useless anyway because all of these cars with collision avoidance systems trip them. It was in the mid 1980's. I don't know what the laws are now. For giggles and something to play with, I just bought a 1988 Lincoln Town Car. It's in very good condition with 90K miles. I bought it for cheap bucks because the seller said it had an issue with the anti-theft system that shut down the ignition and electrical systems every once in a while when you went to start it. He had one of those battery disconnect switches on the negative terminal and told me that when it happens to just loosen the knob to disconnect the battery and then turn it back in. He said it "reset" the system. Turns out it had nothing to do with the anti-theft system at all. The disconnect switch contact areas were completely pitted and corroded so electrical contact was minimal. Loosening and tightening it again would temporarily re-establish the connection but after a few starts it would oxidize and die again. Took the disconnect switch apart, cleaned it up and burnished it. Haven't had a problem since. Car is a boat. It's like driving a couch down the road. Talk about extremes. Going back and forth from a F-250 Super Duty to the Town Car boat takes some adjustment. In the 80's Budget Rent a car would upgrade us to the Town Car. Hated those things. Would have been OK if driving long distances on the highway, but a QE2 boat around town. No question. My F-250 feels like a sports care compared to the Town Car. But, it's fun to play with. The two rear window motors were burnt out also. The guy I bought it from included two new motors that he bought but he didn't want to attempt to install them. I am not much of a mechanic but I found an excellent YouTube video of a guy explaining step by step how to take the door panels apart without destroying anything, drilling holes to get access to the motor bolts and installing the new motors. With the help of that video I was able to replace both motors in about an hour each. Then I started smelling a faint odor of gas after the car was run. It came from the rear tire on the driver's side. It didn't smell of gas if the car had not been run, so I figured it wasn't the tank. Finally found it was the flexible fuel line connector on the line that comes out of the tank from the fuel pump and connects to the metal fuel line that runs to the engine. It was weeping ... not a dripping leak or anything. I removed the connector, cut the line back, wire brushed the metal tubing and installed a short, rubber fuel line with double hose clamps. Works fine and no more leak. Now I have to take the dash apart and fix some vacuum line leaks. They are associated with the gear selector. Don't have a clue what they are for but I'll find out. It's a boat but it rides nice. Keeps me busy with something to play with. |
Had to share this story
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:59:34 -0400, Poco Loco wrote: 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. It is a lot harder if you have to do all of your illegal voting on the same day ;-) It is interesting that when the voter fraud deniers talk about fraud, they admit most of it (that is caught) is with absentee ballots, then they want to expand that program. My late fishing partner was from Harrisburg, PA. Said his grandpa was a ward boss, and would leave early in the morning, to vote all over the city. Was tiring according to Cal. |
Had to share this story
BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. The guy in the video isn't good at making videos. Don't equate his lack of ability to make a video to everyone's lack of ability to get the lock off in seconds. Point again is: They are made to help prevent accidental discharge ... not theft. You don't give kids enough credit. They are useless feel good devices similar to useless feel good laws. Just go in my garage and get an angle grinder or dremel or the cutting torch. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
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. 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. And that has worked in Chicago and Detroit, and Oakland? |
Had to share this story
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 15:01:23 -0400, KC wrote: 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... Lock picking just takes the touch,. Once you get the hang of it, you can do it. You put tension on the cylinder and probe each pin, feeling for the spot that it lines up, when you get them all, the lock turns. A high quality "pin" lock, where the tolerances are tight, can be tough, those with the wafers like a desk drawer lock are trivial. They have vibrating picks that are a lot easier to use Or you just make a bump key ;-) Some of the door locks are really hard to pick, as they have a notch in the pin to defeat the pressure method. But lots of locks are easy to pick. When I started at NCR we all made lock picks to open registers that the customer lost the keys, and we did not want to go to the office to get a copy. |
Had to share this story
Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 01:44:01 -0400, 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. The guns I've bought here all came with the same type lock: http://www.info4guns.com/graphics/pi...cable_lock.jpg Each has it's own key. Probably could be picked or the cable cut, but would keep a kid from accidentally loading the gun and shooting someone. Pretty much what all come with. My AR came with one. POS as to key hardly works. Cops give away cable locks at sportsman shows. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/1/2014 11:54 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 11/1/2014 10:34 AM, Poco Loco wrote: On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 09:34:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/1/2014 8:01 AM, Poco Loco 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? The S&W's I bought came with a shell casing in a sealed envelope. The Sig Sauers came without a casing. The Kimber also came without a casing, but it did have a sticker on the box saying, "NO SHELL CASING FOR MARYLAND." Ah .. That suggests the purpose is other than simply to prove the gun was test fired. Interesting: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...ing-technology "Maryland has already been down the road of requiring that a fired shell casing be provided for every pistol sold in the state (that being a simpler type of microstamping). That requirement has not produced a single criminal conviction in 15 years, and the Maryland State Police no longer enter the shell casings into a searchable database both because of the cost and lack of effectiveness of the technology. In fact, New York recently repealed its shell case requirement in order to use those funds to hire more state police, leaving Maryland as the only state that still retains this costly and ineffective requirement. Repeating the shell casing mistake with a more expensive, less reliable technology just wastes even more resources." Maybe Massachusetts no longer requires it either although my most recent purchase (a couple of months ago) of a Sig Sauer P238 came with one. Did the FFL who transferred the firearm to you keep the shell casing? If not, then it isn't needed in your state. Nope. They are in the box or case and the buyer keeps them. It seems strange that the manufacturers would bother to include them in some states and not others regardless if the state uses them. That's one of the complaints I have about gun laws. They are not uniform. Every state has it's own set of laws. I can't legally travel from here to my son's house in SC with a gun in my car because of the different laws. Does not cost the manufacturer anything to include the casing. They test fire the weapon anyway, so include the casing. Maybe a penny for the bag. Have to pick up the casing anyway. |
Had to share this story
KC wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:30 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 10:15 PM, KC wrote: On 10/31/2014 10:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:40 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 10/30/2014 10:17 PM, wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:45:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/30/2014 8:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:48:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Of course, there are the hard core gun nuts who jump to the claim that registration automatically means confiscation someday. I don't think we will ever see that happen. === Based on the way things seem to be going, I don't think you can rule it out. Rights are eroded one small step at a time. I don't consider myself to be a hard core gun nut but do try to read the tea leaves and check which way the wind is blowing. I guess I've been reading different tea leaves. If there has ever been a period for advocates of gun bans and/or repeal of the 2A to be successful it was in the recent 18 month period that involved something like 74 separate mass school shootings. Can you cite one of those shootings that would have been stopped with a stronger background check or gun registration? They had no problem tracking every one of these guns back to a legal buyer, usually the parent or the shooter himself. They couldn't even get a universal background check approved. Why bother to pass an unenforceable law, at least not against the people you are trying to keep the gun away from. That's not the point Greg. We were discussing the possibilities or probabilities of guns being banned or revoking the 2A. My point was that if there was ever a reason for those who would advocate a ban it would have been the recent 74 mass school shootings. It wasn't enough to even get universal background checks supported. That's why I don't think you'll ever see a general ban of firearms in our lifetime or of the next two or three generations. You are approaching this issue with a can of paint and a brush while standing at the door to a room with your back to the inside of the room. With every compromise you are taking a step backwards toward the corner of the room and laying down a swath of wet paint in front of you. Compromise to Gun Control Advocates is where you do what they say. One thing is for sure Bar. This discussion has opened my eyes with regard to how touchy this subject is and how adamant and fundamental people are about their "gun rights". Even suggesting that maybe some reasonable controls and there is the problem. *You* decide what's "reasonable" then decide who is being touchy... again, coming into a debate with predetermined judgements, and just assuming everyone else stipulates to your point of view (before the debate even starts) is arrogant.. and a few other things I don't need to bother with. You do tend to start discussions that are already finished in your head.... But that's what dems do.... be considered results in condemnation and ridicule by some. It was called a discussion Scott, something you are not capable of doing without getting all puffy and getting your underwear in a bunch. Just ignore it. You are incredible... lol... No, you are the incredible one. He pointed out your judgement errors. You also probably camp in the left lane. I love driving in Europe. They seem to know how to drive on a highway. Stay right except to pass. Cops give tickets for driving in other than the left lane, if you are not passing. |
Had to share this story
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/31/2014 10:10 PM, KC wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/31/2014 9:04 PM, wrote: On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:24:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: SC only has one plate, mounted on the rear. I don't run a front "vanity" plate for that very reason. The cops use your headlights then as their secondary target. Many years ago Car and Driver did a radar test and they found the radiator was the biggest target, followed by the headlights. The corvette was the lowest reflectivity car they tested (fiberglass body, retracting headlights and a tilted radiator) These days, if I wanted a laser resistant car, I would get one with retracting headlights and paint the nose with bed liner material It would buy you several hundred feet anyway. They also sell a laser jammer. It basically floods the road in front of you with IR noise. Again, you get a few hundred feet. I just drive 65. Max. I will go 5-7 over.. It's an unwritten but well known fact that the CT State Police will not tag you for less than ten over on the interstates... unless there are other circumstances of course.. But in general you will not get a ticket for 74 in a 65.... I understand. I just don't feel the need to test the limits. I did a lot of driving a few years ago back and forth from Florida. Made about 11 or 12 trips, about 1500 miles each way over a period of three years. Many of the trips included hauling a trailer or a boat. It took 2 and a half days, regardless of how fast I drove. Did one trip non-stop other than a 20 minute nap and fuel stops. I'll never do that again. The problem in California is the towing and truck laws. Both asinine and dangerous. You can tow at 55 mph maximum! 70 mph speed limit on I-5, 2 lanes each way and the trucks and trailers are limited to 55. Most get away with 63, but the traffic is trying to do 80. So you have a truck doing 63 trying to pass a truck doing 60, or a Walmart truck doing 55. They do not speed. Lose job if they do. So you have traffic jams and speed differential accidents. Most states around here either have the same speed limit for trucks or towing as the regular traffic. Or at the most a 5 mph differential. Cops love the revenue of towing tickets. I got a ticket towing my race car for 5 over at 1:30am in Madera county years ago. At that time the towing speed limit was 50, and a week later limit went to 55. And I was only doing the 5 over. |
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
|
Had to share this story
On 11/4/2014 9:58 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/4/2014 9:47 AM, wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:58:45 -0600, Califbill wrote: You don't give kids enough credit. They are useless feel good devices similar to useless feel good laws. Just go in my garage and get an angle grinder or dremel or the cutting torch. I opened the trigger lock I have with a paper clip and didn't damage it at all. Mom and Dad would have no idea I have free access to the gun Like to see that vid... Me too. Kids using angle grinders, cutting torches and dremel tools. There's another solution. Don't have guns around when you have kids in the household. I never felt a desire or need for having guns in the house while we were raising our three kids. I didn't hunt and guns really didn't hold that much interest to me. It wasn't until about four years ago that I decided to get a permit. Part of the reasoning was because of the great guitar shop experiment that involved carrying a relatively large amount of cash and the recommendation of a lawyer. The other was the recognition that I was getting older, we had already experienced a home invasion and I wanted a last resort means of defending my wife and I other than a baseball bat. |
Had to share this story
On 11/4/2014 10:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 11/4/2014 9:58 AM, KC wrote: On 11/4/2014 9:47 AM, wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:58:45 -0600, Califbill wrote: You don't give kids enough credit. They are useless feel good devices similar to useless feel good laws. Just go in my garage and get an angle grinder or dremel or the cutting torch. I opened the trigger lock I have with a paper clip and didn't damage it at all. Mom and Dad would have no idea I have free access to the gun Like to see that vid... Me too. Kids using angle grinders, cutting torches and dremel tools. There's another solution. Don't have guns around when you have kids in the household. I never felt a desire or need for having guns in the house while we were raising our three kids. I didn't hunt and guns really didn't hold that much interest to me. It wasn't until about four years ago that I decided to get a permit. Part of the reasoning was because of the great guitar shop experiment that involved carrying a relatively large amount of cash and the recommendation of a lawyer. The other was the recognition that I was getting older, we had already experienced a home invasion and I wanted a last resort means of defending my wife and I other than a baseball bat. My parents gave me a .22 rifle when I was 12 years old. I still have it and will have it until the day I die. It has never killed a living breathing animal or human. It has destroyed countless targets. I received the firearm about 41 years ago and it has been in my possession every where I have lived since I received it. My kids didn't know about it until they were about 14 or 15. I find nothing wrong with that Bar. You are obviously a responsible gun owner. I'll bet that even when they were 14 or 15 their access to that rifle was carefully monitored and any use of it was supervised. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com