On 10/2/2015 4:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:36:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:24:00 -0400, John H.
wrote:

How about severe penalties for illegal weapons possession? Make possession of such a
federal offense - minimum five years.

Most illegal purchases are a federal crime now had have been since the
Johnson administration, including BAO's "hopping across the line to
buy a gun at a show" (at least 2 counts for each gun)

There are plenty of laws, just not a lot of enforcement



I'm talking possession, not purchase. I think federal judges might be a bit more
severe in their punishments.

Here you go. This report has only the states that require a license or
permit to have a handgun. It lists the penalties for possession without
a license/permit and also lists penalties for minors and convicted felons.

It says that only about 13 states have laws that require a license or
permit. No penalties are shown for those states without a license or
permit requirement because ... well, it's not against the law. Crazy.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0345.htm

On 10/2/2015 1:43 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 10/2/2015 10:27 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Does it really matter how old he was? He was obviously a nutcase.
Nutcases shouldn't own or have easy access to guns.

Time to revamp the laws that allow this to happen.




Just get used to it. AFAIK, he was a legal gun owner.
Or was allowed access to the guns of a legal gun owner.



Wow. There's an idea. Just "get used" to wackos going into schools
and blowing away a bunch of innocent people. Gotcha, but I am still
trying to accept the fact that ISIS is just a bunch of hoodlums.

Just get used to it. I already am.
It's part of American "culture."
Until it changes. Use go-go dancing is an example.
You have no evidence that the shooter used illegal guns.



In the interest of newsgroup harmony, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:39:01 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 4:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:36:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:24:00 -0400, John H.
wrote:

How about severe penalties for illegal weapons possession? Make possession of such a
federal offense - minimum five years.

Most illegal purchases are a federal crime now had have been since the
Johnson administration, including BAO's "hopping across the line to
buy a gun at a show" (at least 2 counts for each gun)

There are plenty of laws, just not a lot of enforcement



I'm talking possession, not purchase. I think federal judges might be a bit more
severe in their punishments.

Here you go. This report has only the states that require a license or
permit to have a handgun. It lists the penalties for possession without
a license/permit and also lists penalties for minors and convicted felons.

It says that only about 13 states have laws that require a license or
permit. No penalties are shown for those states without a license or
permit requirement because ... well, it's not against the law. Crazy.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0345.htm

Funny... in the section: "Criminal Penalties for Illegal Possession of Handguns by Convicted Felons", in SC, TX, FL and CT it's a felony, but in MD it's just a misdemeanor. Don't want to be too hard on those poor felons, eh?

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:50:44 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.

Or if a Dr. just doesn't like guns, he'd find a reason to disqualify *all* of them.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:29:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not ignoring your comments about the lack of penalties for illegal
weapons possession. I am suggesting that we try to prevent it in the
first place. The concept of the license requirement to buy ammo is to
get around the NRA supported 2nd Amendment "right" claims.

===

If you made it difficult or expensive to purchase ammo, there would
immediately be a large number of "make your own ammo" kits on the
market. It's not difficult as evidenced by the large number of
serious target shooters that are already reloading their own. You
keep proposing solutions that penalize legitimate gun owners and
target shooters. Why not think of ways to go after the root causes?
We all know what they are. It just takes some political backbone to
enforce the laws we already have. New York City made some major
progress by enforcing strict "stop and frisk" policies for suspicious
persons. You can guess how that ended up even though it was
successful.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:44:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Just get used to it. I already am.
It's part of American "culture."
Until it changes. Use go-go dancing is an example.
You have no evidence that the shooter used illegal guns.



In the interest of newsgroup harmony, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

===

Aww shucks. I for one am interested in knowing just what the problem
is with "go-go dancing" whatever that is.

In article m1vt0btuqu0qcl27scn7k8ol5epufcqtbr@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:29:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not ignoring your comments about the lack of penalties for illegal
weapons possession. I am suggesting that we try to prevent it in the
first place. The concept of the license requirement to buy ammo is to
get around the NRA supported 2nd Amendment "right" claims.

===

If you made it difficult or expensive to purchase ammo, there would
immediately be a large number of "make your own ammo" kits on the
market. It's not difficult as evidenced by the large number of
serious target shooters that are already reloading their own. You
keep proposing solutions that penalize legitimate gun owners and
target shooters.

The shooter of the people in Oregon was a legitimate
gun owner. And he found targets.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 17:57:53 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:29:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I am not ignoring your comments about the lack of penalties for illegal
weapons possession. I am suggesting that we try to prevent it in the
first place. The concept of the license requirement to buy ammo is to
get around the NRA supported 2nd Amendment "right" claims.

===

If you made it difficult or expensive to purchase ammo, there would
immediately be a large number of "make your own ammo" kits on the
market. It's not difficult as evidenced by the large number of
serious target shooters that are already reloading their own. You
keep proposing solutions that penalize legitimate gun owners and
target shooters. Why not think of ways to go after the root causes?
We all know what they are. It just takes some political backbone to
enforce the laws we already have. New York City made some major
progress by enforcing strict "stop and frisk" policies for suspicious
persons. You can guess how that ended up even though it was
successful.

The political backbone, especially at the local level, is lacking. Making illegal
possession a federal offense might make the enforcement a bit easier. The idea that
we shouldn't do much of anything for illegal possession doesn't make much sense. Even
if all the laws Luddite wants were passed, the effect on *illegal* possession would
be nil.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!