On 10/2/2015 5:57 PM, 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.



I don't understand why so many people feel that the requirement of a
license/permit is "penalizing" anyone. Maybe I am going by my own
experience here in Massachusetts. In order to legally own a firearm
a MA resident must have one of several types of gun permits with a
Class "A" concealed carry permit being the most sought after. Others
are for handguns for home defense only, and long gun permit
(rifle/shotgun) only. There's even a permit available to legally carry
mace.

The reason for this is that there are some pretty severe penalties,
including jail time, for the possession of a firearm *without* the
required permit. Of course, the permit issuance process includes
a criminal background check.

The issued permit must be shown to the cashier when purchasing ammo.

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 5:57 PM, 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.



I don't understand why so many people feel that the requirement of a
license/permit is "penalizing" anyone. Maybe I am going by my own
experience here in Massachusetts. In order to legally own a firearm
a MA resident must have one of several types of gun permits with a
Class "A" concealed carry permit being the most sought after. Others
are for handguns for home defense only, and long gun permit
(rifle/shotgun) only. There's even a permit available to legally carry
mace.

The reason for this is that there are some pretty severe penalties,
including jail time, for the possession of a firearm *without* the
required permit. Of course, the permit issuance process includes
a criminal background check.

The issued permit must be shown to the cashier when purchasing ammo.

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.


Because it does not do anything about the root cause.

On 10/2/2015 7:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 5:57 PM, 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.



I don't understand why so many people feel that the requirement of a
license/permit is "penalizing" anyone. Maybe I am going by my own
experience here in Massachusetts. In order to legally own a firearm
a MA resident must have one of several types of gun permits with a
Class "A" concealed carry permit being the most sought after. Others
are for handguns for home defense only, and long gun permit
(rifle/shotgun) only. There's even a permit available to legally carry
mace.

The reason for this is that there are some pretty severe penalties,
including jail time, for the possession of a firearm *without* the
required permit. Of course, the permit issuance process includes
a criminal background check.

The issued permit must be shown to the cashier when purchasing ammo.

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.


Because it does not do anything about the root cause.



Ok. So we may as well adopt BOA's and Jeb Bush's philosophy about
mass shootings of innocent people (including little kids).

"**** happens".

Right?

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.

In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.

Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne.
Tell him he's uncaring.
You can't, because he's a fellow traveler.

On 10/2/2015 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



There is plenty of over regulation that I find annoying or frustrating
.... the ban of some popular handguns up here due to the attorney general
and the safety testing labs confusing "certification" process is a good
example ...but getting a permit to legally own a firearm isn't one of my
beefs. It's really a simple process and as long as you are not a
convicted felon your application is generally approved. There's a bit
of a safety net for the public in the process though. It's up to the
local police chief to give final approval and to include any
restrictions. Handgun permits in MA is a "may" issue rather than a
"shall" issue. If an applicant is known by the police department to
have a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse or other problems that
may not have lead to an arrest or conviction, the permit may be
disapproved. At least it can weed out some who probably shouldn't own
a gun.

On 10/2/2015 7:36 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne.
Tell him he's uncaring.
You can't, because he's a fellow traveler.

Why would I? Unlike you, Wayne can express his disagreements
as a mature adult minus the insults and snarky responses you
are so prone to.

Fellow traveler? WTF are you talking about now?

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
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.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 19:17:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 5:57 PM, 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.



I don't understand why so many people feel that the requirement of a
license/permit is "penalizing" anyone. Maybe I am going by my own
experience here in Massachusetts. In order to legally own a firearm
a MA resident must have one of several types of gun permits with a
Class "A" concealed carry permit being the most sought after. Others
are for handguns for home defense only, and long gun permit
(rifle/shotgun) only. There's even a permit available to legally carry
mace.

The reason for this is that there are some pretty severe penalties,
including jail time, for the possession of a firearm *without* the
required permit. Of course, the permit issuance process includes
a criminal background check.

The issued permit must be shown to the cashier when purchasing ammo.

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.


Because it does not do anything about the root cause.



Ok. So we may as well adopt BOA's and Jeb Bush's philosophy about
mass shootings of innocent people (including little kids).

"**** happens".

Right?

No, not right. Go after the root cause of the great majority of the shootings. If
you're for infringing on rights, let cops pat down suspected gun carriers, especially
in high crime areas.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!