|
Sent by a friend with guns
My Gun
Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun right in the doorway. I left 9 shells beside it, then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of my house. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it. It hadn't moved itself. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the Media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. The United States is third in Murders throughout the World. But if you take out just four cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington, DC and New Orleans, the United States is fourth from the bottom, in the entire world, for Murders! These four Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U. S. All four of these cities are controlled by Democrats. It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data - right? Well, I'm off to check on my spoons. I hear they're making people fat. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
John, my guns are well behaved too!
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
John, my guns are well behaved too! In the week ending June 18, there were 15 homicides in Chicago. Not one of them made the local news here. Almost all were by gunshot, and the vast majority of those killed were black males. Yet, no mention in the news. One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 6/30/2015 5:30 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: John, my guns are well behaved too! In the week ending June 18, there were 15 homicides in Chicago. Not one of them made the local news here. Almost all were by gunshot, and the vast majority of those killed were black males. Yet, no mention in the news. One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. |
Sent by a friend with guns
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many murders occur in Chicago with legally owned guns? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:34:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". === There is quite a lot of evidence to show that law enforcement officers almost never try to trace the chain of custody with a murder weapon. Their primary focus, as it should be, is on apprehending the perpetrator and any accomplices. Registration of all firearms is the first step down the slippery slope of taxation, regulation and confiscation. It would also create a nation of law breakers. Be careful what you ask for, and do not always assume that government has your best interests at heart. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 6/30/2015 9:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 20:34:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". === There is quite a lot of evidence to show that law enforcement officers almost never try to trace the chain of custody with a murder weapon. Their primary focus, as it should be, is on apprehending the perpetrator and any accomplices. Registration of all firearms is the first step down the slippery slope of taxation, regulation and confiscation. It would also create a nation of law breakers. Be careful what you ask for, and do not always assume that government has your best interests at heart. Could it be that law enforcement doesn't bother tracing the chain of custody simply because there isn't one? I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's the whole point. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's the whole point. === Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately. What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute, try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and the good guys will be the only ones impacted. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 6/30/2015 10:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's the whole point. === Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately. What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute, try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and the good guys will be the only ones impacted. I don't think universal background checks and gun registration will cure all ills overnight. It's a start though. As years go by guns will become more difficult to obtain by people who shouldn't or are not permitted to legally own one. All the gun owners that I know agree that controlling access to firearms in their homes is part of being a responsible gun owner. Comments have been made that a person who leaves a gun out and available to someone who commits a crime or homicide with it shares in the blame for the commitment of the crime. Responsible gun owners keep them locked up in a gun safe when not in use. It seems to me that the responsibility extends and continues to where that gun ends up when sold or transferred. It doesn't make sense that a gun owner is responsible while it is in his or her possession but all bets are off when they transfer or sell it with no qualification or records kept of the subsequent owners. If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 04:56:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/30/2015 10:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:24:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I understand the slippery slope concerns but I am not a believer that confiscation is in the cards ... other than for those who obtain firearms illegally and without undergoing a background check. That's the whole point. === Confiscation always starts with a single step and it has happened elsewhere in the recent past. We're not immune unfortunately. What makes you think that the owners of illegal firearms will register? They're already criminals and one more law to them is nothing. If you think the war on drugs is impossible to prosecute, try starting a war on guns. Even the good guys will fight that, and the good guys will be the only ones impacted. I don't think universal background checks and gun registration will cure all ills overnight. It's a start though. As years go by guns will become more difficult to obtain by people who shouldn't or are not permitted to legally own one. All the gun owners that I know agree that controlling access to firearms in their homes is part of being a responsible gun owner. Comments have been made that a person who leaves a gun out and available to someone who commits a crime or homicide with it shares in the blame for the commitment of the crime. Responsible gun owners keep them locked up in a gun safe when not in use. It seems to me that the responsibility extends and continues to where that gun ends up when sold or transferred. It doesn't make sense that a gun owner is responsible while it is in his or her possession but all bets are off when they transfer or sell it with no qualification or records kept of the subsequent owners. If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). === People who live in the boondocks need to have a firearm readily available for personal protection. When seconds count, the police are minutes away (or sometimes a lot more). It is entirely unreasonable to expect them to keep all guns in a safe. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? |
Sent by a friend with guns
|
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 5:30 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: John, my guns are well behaved too! In the week ending June 18, there were 15 homicides in Chicago. Not one of them made the local news here. Almost all were by gunshot, and the vast majority of those killed were black males. Yet, no mention in the news. One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? I'll bet the cops in the cities mentioned have a pretty good idea who has the guns. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done, come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/1/2015 10:05 AM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done, come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork. I don't know how to cure criminal behavior. I'd just like to make it more difficult for them to have guns. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:35:54 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. So I can have one stashed out of sight, loaded and ready, and I don't have to retrieve it and place it in the safe when I go to the store for a gallon of milk? And if my home is burglarized while I'm gone I won't be held liable if it's stolen? That's great! Oh, but that's not what you mean. From my understanding, in your state you would be held responsible for a criminal's actions if you did what I described above. That is unreasonable in my opinion. I believe that when my weapon is in my locked home, on my property, it is under my control whether I am physically present or not. My home is my "safe", and no one has access to it's contents without breaking the law. Your state's laws concerning that issue and firearms are onerous, IMO. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:09:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/1/2015 10:05 AM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:35:58 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. Again, go fix the behavior of those committing all the homicides. Once that's done, come back and institute a bureaucracy to track paperwork. I don't know how to cure criminal behavior. I'd just like to make it more difficult for them to have guns. Let's suppose I'm not one who gives a **** about the law or who owns guns. I decide to sell my guns to some gangsta from downtown. The law says I have to complete paperwork and have a background check run on the guy. But, I'm playing honey badger - not giving a **** about the law, so I sell four or five guns I've legally obtained and make a killing moneywise. Knowing those guns could be used to commit crime, and that they could be traced back to me, I call the cops. I tell the cops my house was broken into and my guns were stolen. They ask if they were secured. I say, "Hell yes, the crooks took the whole safe." Now what??? Your paperwork bureaucracy has been foiled again. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/1/2015 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:35:54 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 8:15 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:41:55 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 7:19 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:56:32 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: If a gun is stolen from my house, I would share the responsibility if it was not kept in a locked safe (as required by law). Why? The gun was in your possession, inside of your home. A crime was committed (breaking and entering, burglary), and the gun was taken from you by a criminal. If your car is stolen from your garage and the perp kills a pedestrian with it, you aren't held responsible. Why would you be for a stolen gun? See how twisted the laws have already become? Believe it or not there are many states that (by law) require firearms that are not being used to be stored in a safe or otherwise locked. You may argue that the safe or the trigger lock is nothing but a minor inconvenience to a burglar but you can be held responsible if it can be proven that you did not properly store the firearm as required. MA is one of those states. You live in SC right? I'll betcha all the guns, rifles and shotguns in your local police station that are not in current use are not just laying around. They are locked up. You misread my post. I completely understand that some states have this law. I was expressing why I believe the law is wrong. It was a step towards making the act of owning a gun so onerous that most would not want to. Don't get me wrong... I'm in favor (and I practice) keeping guns in a safe location when not in use. Especially when there are children in the household. But in an adult only household where both can safely handle a gun, it should be *legal* to keep one or more within quick and easy access, without fear of being held liable in the case you become a *victim* of a robbery. The police station argument doesn't really work. Their excess may be secured, but they're all walking around with one on their belt. :) There is nothing in the home storage laws that prevents you from having a gun out of the safe or without a trigger lock as long as you are in control of it and who has access to it. So I can have one stashed out of sight, loaded and ready, and I don't have to retrieve it and place it in the safe when I go to the store for a gallon of milk? And if my home is burglarized while I'm gone I won't be held liable if it's stolen? That's great! Oh, but that's not what you mean. From my understanding, in your state you would be held responsible for a criminal's actions if you did what I described above. That is unreasonable in my opinion. I believe that when my weapon is in my locked home, on my property, it is under my control whether I am physically present or not. My home is my "safe", and no one has access to it's contents without breaking the law. Your state's laws concerning that issue and firearms are onerous, IMO. If onerous, 27 other states have similar law so MA is not alone in it's onerousness. 28 states have safe storage laws ... primarily to protect children. South Carolina is not one of them .... yet. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? Never said "all". I am realistic about that. We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe than a background check and gun registration. In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will wish they had. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? Never said "all". I am realistic about that. We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe than a background check and gun registration. In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will wish they had. Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/1/2015 4:25 PM, John H wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? Never said "all". I am realistic about that. We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe than a background check and gun registration. In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will wish they had. Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are. You're right. There's no hope. Just ban guns period. That way *anyone* with one is a criminal. |
Sent by a friend with guns
John H.
- show quoted text - "I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? " Maybe you and your Moppetts could round them all up and ship them somewhere else. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 16:35:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/1/2015 4:25 PM, John H wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:08:54 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? Never said "all". I am realistic about that. We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe than a background check and gun registration. In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will wish they had. Hopefully some smart people will realize that the cities with the highest crime rates have the most onerous gun laws and realize how stupid more gun laws really are. You're right. There's no hope. Just ban guns period. That way *anyone* with one is a criminal. Well, it's for damn sure the criminals *will* have theirs. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Then they'll kill each other with knives and baseball bats. We have a major culture problem on our hands which leads to the drugs, gangs and violence. If we don't address that nothing else will matter. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. |
Sent by a friend with guns
True North wrote:
John H. - show quoted text - "I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? " Maybe you and your Moppetts could round them all up and ship them somewhere else. If you are going to play extreme stupid, stay out of the conversation. |
Sent by a friend with guns
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 7/1/2015 3:29 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: One might think we should focus on the *behavior* of the folks committing the homicides rather than attempting to build a bureaucracy around gun paperwork. How do you focus on the "behavior" of people committing homicides with guns if you don't know who has the guns in the first place? === Almost all of those guns are illegally owned. It is totally naive to think that a new law or two will change that. How many of those illegally owned guns started out as "legally" owned guns? It's a start. All it involves is a requirement for a background check and registration of the firearm to establish a chain of custody. No big deal and no infringement of anyone's "rights". You can not stop car thefts, boat thefts, home burglary, etc. how can all gun thefts can be prevented? Never said "all". I am realistic about that. We all agree that guns in the hands of nutcases or those of criminal intent is a danger in our society. Yet, whenever a suggestion or proposal is made to try to limit their availability (with absolutely no affect on responsible gun ownership), the answers range from "it won't work" to the slippery slope argument. So, nothing changes ... in fact the problem only becomes worse. Eventually it will become a problem that simply cannot be ignored with corrective measures far more severe than a background check and gun registration. In other words, if it cannot be managed ... eventually they will be banned. When that happens those who refuse to try to fix it now will wish they had. Banned will cause real social unrest!!! The war on guns will be as successful as the War on Drugs. We have lost the WonD. Figure out something else and the gun murders will plummet. |
Sent by a friend with guns
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:42:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I'm not arguing to do nothing. I'm arguing to focus on the damn problem. You and I aren't the problem. The hoods and druggies in the inner cities are the problem. What do you suggest be done about them? For one thing we can try to make their access to firearms more difficult. === Here's a modest proposal. Since we all agree that people are killing each other over drugs and drug money, why not decriminalize all drug use and drug possession. Then take it a step further by supplying registered drug users with all the drugs they want. Some European countries have adopted a similar model and they don't have the problems that we do. Sure, a certain number of people will OD or otherwise become unproductive but most of them are already unproductive. Education and good parenting should be sufficient to keep proliferation under control. Require birth control substance be added to all drugs. Cut down on unwed births, and if a druggie, should not be having kids. |
Sent by a friend with guns
Justan Olphat
On 7/1/2015 8:09 PM, True North wrote: On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 19:39:54 UTC-3, Mr. Luddite *wrote: On 7/1/2015 4:49 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:24:27 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:41 PM, John H wrote: On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:34:11 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" - show quoted text - "Special test? What kind of special test? " -- Respectfully submitted by Justan For dementia as a start, Stinky. Worried that you might fail? |
Sent by a friend with guns
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 04:30:04 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Justan Olphat On 7/1/2015 8:09 PM, True North wrote: On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 19:39:54 UTC-3, Mr. Luddite *wrote: On 7/1/2015 4:49 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:24:27 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:41 PM, John H wrote: On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:34:11 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" - show quoted text - "Special test? What kind of special test? " -- Respectfully submitted by Justan For dementia as a start, Stinky. Worried that you might fail? Well, it's for damn sure you wouldn't own a bb gun, Don. Do you think Harry would pass your test? -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Sent by a friend with guns
JohnnyMop swishes....
"Well, it's for damn sure you wouldn't own a bb gun, Don. Do you think Harry would pass your test?" My my Johnny sounds like you're afraid of any kind of dementia test...I don't blame you. You and Kalif Swill would have to melt those gun collections down into something useful. |
Sent by a friend with guns
On 7/2/2015 7:30 AM, True North wrote:
Justan Olphat On 7/1/2015 8:09 PM, True North wrote: On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 19:39:54 UTC-3, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 4:49 wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:24:27 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:41 PM, John H wrote: On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:34:11 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. - show quoted text - "Special test? What kind of special test?" -- Respectfully submitted by Justan For dementia as a start, Stinky. Worried that you might fail? How would your low brain output skew the results of that test? Here's a FYI for you. Normally, if you submit your reply below the "--" it will be discarded from future replies. If you don't comprehend this, ask Harry to explain it to you. Bye for now, dimwit. ;-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Sent by a friend with guns
True North wrote:
Justan Olphat On 7/1/2015 8:09 PM, True North wrote: On Wednesday, 1 July 2015 19:39:54 UTC-3, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 4:49 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:24:27 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 7/1/2015 3:41 PM, John H wrote: On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:34:11 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2015 7:57 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:29:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" - show quoted text - "Special test? What kind of special test?" Exactly! Are you still quoting challenged, SFB? |
Sent by a friend with guns
True North wrote:
JohnnyMop swishes.... "Well, it's for damn sure you wouldn't own a bb gun, Don. Do you think Harry would pass your test?" My my Johnny sounds like you're afraid of any kind of dementia test...I don't blame you. You and Kalif Swill would have to melt those gun collections down into something useful. Actually, you being Canadian, that statement could put you in jail. Hate speech. At least the Canadian.'s I am meeting while here in BC, are all nice. And they are from Ontario and Alberta besides BC. What is it about Halifax? |
Sent by a friend with guns
Califbill wrote:
True North wrote: JohnnyMop swishes.... "Well, it's for damn sure you wouldn't own a bb gun, Don. Do you think Harry would pass your test?" My my Johnny sounds like you're afraid of any kind of dementia test...I don't blame you. You and Kalif Swill would have to melt those gun collections down into something useful. Actually, you being Canadian, that statement could put you in jail. Hate speech. At least the Canadian.'s I am meeting while here in BC, are all nice. And they are from Ontario and Alberta besides BC. What is it about Halifax? The Trailer Park Boys influence. They all hope to be them. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com