| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill
wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote: I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common sense gun control Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense. These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh? Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored. Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not help much for the people who refuse to wear it. Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3. Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly? How about when you have two government agencies with regulations diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance. Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On 11/14/2014 2:33 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote: I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common sense gun control Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense. These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh? Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored. Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not help much for the people who refuse to wear it. Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3. Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly? Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example? How about when you have two government agencies with regulations diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote: I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common sense gun control Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense. These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh? Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored. Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not help much for the people who refuse to wear it. Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3. Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly? How about when you have two government agencies with regulations diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance. Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example? Actual. Lots of cases. Like the EPA saying the farmer can not disk his fends line because it is a wetland, and if he does, they will fine him a $100k, while the fire dept says they will fine him if he does not disk. Lots of contrary regulations. Some even from the same entity. And while you reduce gun deaths by 1/3, where does that 1/3 come from? Armed criminals, who ignore the law anyway. Or suicide, who just use a different method? |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Richard!!!
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:02:38 -0600, Califbill
wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill wrote: jps wrote: On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote: I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common sense gun control Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense. These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh? Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored. Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not help much for the people who refuse to wear it. Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3. Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly? How about when you have two government agencies with regulations diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance. Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example? Actual. Lots of cases. Like the EPA saying the farmer can not disk his fends line because it is a wetland, and if he does, they will fine him a $100k, while the fire dept says they will fine him if he does not disk. Lots of contrary regulations. Some even from the same entity. And while you reduce gun deaths by 1/3, where does that 1/3 come from? Armed criminals, who ignore the law anyway. Or suicide, who just use a different method? But no specific examples, making it hypthetical. Maybe cross referencing mental health or domestic violence incidents with gun ownership would help drop the homicide/suicide rates? It could mean that gun freaks with a bad temper might lose their right to bear arms. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Hey Richard... | General | |||
| Hey Richard | General | |||
| for Richard | General | |||
| hey Richard. have you seen this? | General | |||
| Think Richard made it? | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
