|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:08:32 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/1/15 12:59 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:22:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 12:19 PM, John H. wrote: How was that Vietnam service, liar? How was your last Ku Klux Klan RV Jamboree, ****-for-brains? Have I bragged about a KKK anything? You make about as much sense as your little buddy. Maybe you could decipher? I don't mind answering your questions, 'cause I don't have to tangle the web trying to deceive you. How were those trips around the horn? -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm so happy I'm not a ****ed off, old, decrepit, racist white man with a failing body and a failing mind...which is a perfectly valid description of you. You are so full of hate...and nothing else. krause, you continue to use the word 'hate' to describe my feelings for you.. Again, 'hate' is an emotion which requires work. I can't think of anything or anyone I 'hate'. For example, if I see a pile of dog **** on the sidewalk, I don't 'hate' it. I am disgusted by it, but disgust is a long way from 'hate'. For the most part, the analogy above holds true for my feelings about liars.. And, you definitely fit that bill. |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
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? |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/2/2015 10:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:01:19 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:28:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 4:24 PM, wrote: My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational establishment does not recognize military training and experience. Well, there certainly are ways to evaluate the education and training, and "test" the applicants for ability and knowledge. It seems reasonable to grant qualified military personnel paid apprenticeships at hospitals while they pursue educationally whatever can reasonably be determined is needed to help them get a BSN. There are lots of science courses involved in that BSN. My grand niece was an ER nurse in the navy and in civilian life she would have to start like any other high school graduate. There was no path to use any of her training or experience. Officer? Normally they'd have to have a nursing degree. http://www.military-nurse.com/milita...uirements.html -- Ban idiots, not guns! I don't know if there is an Army equivalent to the Navy's Hospital Corpsman rating. It's an enlisted rating and does not require a degree. There is also a Navy Nurse program for commissioned officers. The Navy has always had a different approach to schools and training, mainly because unlike the other services there are often long periods spent underway, isolated from external support and with limited resources and spare parts. As a result Navy schools are designed to prepare each rating to be self sufficient in terms of capabilities ... more so than the other branches that can rely upon support and supply facilities. For example: Air Force techs are know as "board changers". They will troubleshoot a problem in a piece of gear to the printed circuit board level and then swap the bad board for a new one held in inventory. Virtually all the avionics gear that the Air Force uses is designed to be supported this way. That works well when there's a spare parts facility nearby. The Navy techs are trained to troubleshoot to the component level, replacing the bad resistor, diode or capacitor on the board because the ability to store spares for all the gear aboard isn't possible. It's one of the reasons the Navy electronics schools have such a great reputation. Same with the Navy Hospital Corpsman. Both ships I was stationed on did not have a medical doctor. The "doc" was an E6 enlisted Hospital Corpsman who was trained to treat everything from hangovers to performing emergency appendectomies if it was not possible to transfer the patient to a larger ship or shore station. The first "physician's assistant's" (PA) that are very common now in hospitals were Navy Corpsman who had Vietnam service in the Fleet Marines. These people have excellent training and experience. We should make use of it when they return to the civilian world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_corpsman#Training |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:26:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/2/2015 10:41 AM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:01:19 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:28:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 4:24 PM, wrote: My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational establishment does not recognize military training and experience. Well, there certainly are ways to evaluate the education and training, and "test" the applicants for ability and knowledge. It seems reasonable to grant qualified military personnel paid apprenticeships at hospitals while they pursue educationally whatever can reasonably be determined is needed to help them get a BSN. There are lots of science courses involved in that BSN. My grand niece was an ER nurse in the navy and in civilian life she would have to start like any other high school graduate. There was no path to use any of her training or experience. Officer? Normally they'd have to have a nursing degree. http://www.military-nurse.com/milita...uirements.html -- Ban idiots, not guns! I don't know if there is an Army equivalent to the Navy's Hospital Corpsman rating. It's an enlisted rating and does not require a degree. There is also a Navy Nurse program for commissioned officers. The Navy has always had a different approach to schools and training, mainly because unlike the other services there are often long periods spent underway, isolated from external support and with limited resources and spare parts. As a result Navy schools are designed to prepare each rating to be self sufficient in terms of capabilities ... more so than the other branches that can rely upon support and supply facilities. For example: Air Force techs are know as "board changers". They will troubleshoot a problem in a piece of gear to the printed circuit board level and then swap the bad board for a new one held in inventory. Virtually all the avionics gear that the Air Force uses is designed to be supported this way. That works well when there's a spare parts facility nearby. The Navy techs are trained to troubleshoot to the component level, replacing the bad resistor, diode or capacitor on the board because the ability to store spares for all the gear aboard isn't possible. It's one of the reasons the Navy electronics schools have such a great reputation. Same with the Navy Hospital Corpsman. Both ships I was stationed on did not have a medical doctor. The "doc" was an E6 enlisted Hospital Corpsman who was trained to treat everything from hangovers to performing emergency appendectomies if it was not possible to transfer the patient to a larger ship or shore station. The first "physician's assistant's" (PA) that are very common now in hospitals were Navy Corpsman who had Vietnam service in the Fleet Marines. These people have excellent training and experience. We should make use of it when they return to the civilian world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_corpsman#Training Yes, the Army has Combat Medics who go through the training I flasked up here yesterday in response to krause's comment. The Army Nurses have the same requirements as other military nurses (see the link). At the Engineer (an probably most others) battalion level there is a Battalion Surgeon, a doctor. The companies get their medics from the Battalion Medical Platoon on an 'as needed' basis. When in garrison, the medics all report to the Battalion Surgeon. This may have changed a lot. I believe at the Battalion level, now, physicians assistants do most of the medical work of the former doctor. The cases the PA (E6 or E7) can't handle would get moved to the next level. The Army and the Navy seem to operate much the same way. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
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 |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:44:58 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:26:30 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/2/2015 10:41 AM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 20:01:19 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:28:50 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 10/1/15 4:24 PM, wrote: My problem with the current situation is the medical/educational establishment does not recognize military training and experience. Well, there certainly are ways to evaluate the education and training, and "test" the applicants for ability and knowledge. It seems reasonable to grant qualified military personnel paid apprenticeships at hospitals while they pursue educationally whatever can reasonably be determined is needed to help them get a BSN. There are lots of science courses involved in that BSN. My grand niece was an ER nurse in the navy and in civilian life she would have to start like any other high school graduate. There was no path to use any of her training or experience. Officer? Normally they'd have to have a nursing degree. http://www.military-nurse.com/milita...uirements.html -- Ban idiots, not guns! I don't know if there is an Army equivalent to the Navy's Hospital Corpsman rating. It's an enlisted rating and does not require a degree. There is also a Navy Nurse program for commissioned officers. The Navy has always had a different approach to schools and training, mainly because unlike the other services there are often long periods spent underway, isolated from external support and with limited resources and spare parts. As a result Navy schools are designed to prepare each rating to be self sufficient in terms of capabilities ... more so than the other branches that can rely upon support and supply facilities. For example: Air Force techs are know as "board changers". They will troubleshoot a problem in a piece of gear to the printed circuit board level and then swap the bad board for a new one held in inventory. Virtually all the avionics gear that the Air Force uses is designed to be supported this way. That works well when there's a spare parts facility nearby. The Navy techs are trained to troubleshoot to the component level, replacing the bad resistor, diode or capacitor on the board because the ability to store spares for all the gear aboard isn't possible. It's one of the reasons the Navy electronics schools have such a great reputation. Same with the Navy Hospital Corpsman. Both ships I was stationed on did not have a medical doctor. The "doc" was an E6 enlisted Hospital Corpsman who was trained to treat everything from hangovers to performing emergency appendectomies if it was not possible to transfer the patient to a larger ship or shore station. The first "physician's assistant's" (PA) that are very common now in hospitals were Navy Corpsman who had Vietnam service in the Fleet Marines. These people have excellent training and experience. We should make use of it when they return to the civilian world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_corpsman#Training Yes, the Army has Combat Medics who go through the training I flasked up here yesterday in response to krause's comment. The Army Nurses have the same requirements as other military nurses (see the link). At the Engineer (an probably most others) battalion level there is a Battalion Surgeon, a doctor. The companies get their medics from the Battalion Medical Platoon on an 'as needed' basis. When in garrison, the medics all report to the Battalion Surgeon. This may have changed a lot. I believe at the Battalion level, now, physicians assistants do most of the medical work of the former doctor. The cases the PA (E6 or E7) can't handle would get moved to the next level. The Army and the Navy seem to operate much the same way. What Richard was pointing out is on a ship, the corpsman will be "the doctor" and they are not officers. Where my grand niece was, she couldn't call herself an OR nurse but that was the job she did. On a carrier it is a real hospital with real doctors but a lot of the work is still don by enlisted people ... similar to medical techs at medical; places here "in the world". Probably more so. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/2/2015 11:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. harry's half brother BAO is just as crazy as krause. I doubt you'll make any sense out of what he says. |
Trump Seals His Fate
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 |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
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? |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
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! |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
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? |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
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? |
Trump Seals His Fate
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! |
Trump Seals His Fate
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! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/2/15 8:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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. Not really. That's why I ****canned him. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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. === All of that is a royal PITA and puts you at the whim of a local law enforcement officer who may or may not be a reasonable person. If you get a hard liner in your local PD who'd rather not be bothered by the whole process, and/or wants to err only on the side of safety, they might just refuse to issue any permits. It puts the cops into the role of social scientists which they are ill suited for and opens up the very real possibility for cronyism and corruption. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote:
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. So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal? The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy access to guns. Police departments usually know of people with problems in their communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to some previous reason for contact. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:09:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote: 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. So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal? Or I just tell my doctor I've never been to a shrink. There's no way for him to find out otherwise. The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy access to guns. Perhaps the Form 4473 should have a space for the doctor to sign stating..." Name...has no mental problems which should preclude the purchase of a firearm, to the best of my knowledge." That would be pretty simple. The purchaser could take the form to his doc, pay the office visit price, get a signature (or just forge one), and take the form back to the gun dealer. Police departments usually know of people with problems in their communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to some previous reason for contact. I'll bet it wouldn't be long before you'd hear a lot of cries of 'police racism' when suspects 'known to the police' were refused permission. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/2/2015 9:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. === All of that is a royal PITA and puts you at the whim of a local law enforcement officer who may or may not be a reasonable person. If you get a hard liner in your local PD who'd rather not be bothered by the whole process, and/or wants to err only on the side of safety, they might just refuse to issue any permits. It puts the cops into the role of social scientists which they are ill suited for and opens up the very real possibility for cronyism and corruption. Doesn't work that way now-a-days. There was a time up here when the local police chief could (and did) make it policy to deny virtually all gun permits. It was that way back in the 1980's when I first thought about getting a permit. I was talking to my lawyer about it and he basically said, "Forget it". The policy of the chief in the town I lived did not include issuance of gun permits. But that changed due to lawsuits brought by several people in several towns. The towns (and police) lost, due to the terms of the 2nd. So, now the local police have to have a reason to refuse a permit. They are still allowed some discretion ... and I think that is good. If anyone is refused, they can always appeal or sue. Probably not worth it if you have a reputation of violence or being a problem in the community though. |
Trump Seals His Fate
In article QMCdnZwV5dFqu5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says... 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. That's the so-called passion you have for the innocent victims of gun crime. Wayne doesn't want to go to all the trouble of getting a permit, because of "over regulation." He doesn't give one damn **** about them, because the poor guy doesn't want to be inconvenienced. You think he's a "mature adult." Well, I say he doesn't give a **** about what's going on. He doesn't want to deal with "government regulation." Fellow traveler? WTF are you talking about now? Well, you just explained it yourself. Neither of you really care about the victims. Apparently because you're "mature adults." Well I do care. I don't travel with you. I am for federal registration of firearms. And I want that to be very inconvenient. You should get used to mass killings, because you sure won't change anything soft-pedaling gun control. So just get used to it. Won't be too long before there's another. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:00:28 -0400, 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. Every possession represents a sale, transfer (the same in the law) or a theft. It is simply an unenforced crime when that was done illegally. The only way the cops usually fond out about a "possession" is when they are investigating another crime and the gun charge gets traded away or simply not even billed. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:29:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The concept of the license requirement to buy ammo is to get around the NRA supported 2nd Amendment "right" claims. There's an interpreted "right" to own firearms which is used to ward off any reasonable gun control legislation and it would take an Act of Congress to change the wording or interpretation. It will never happen. But, ammo isn't mentioned in the "right". BTW, there are already several states that require a license or permit in order to legally purchase a firearm. There is also at least one state (mine) that also requires the presentation of a valid and current gun permit in order to purchase ammunition. No permit ... no ammo. You still have not explained how this stops the mass shooters we have seen. I can't think of any of them who would did not pass a background check, except the young ones who got the guns and ammo at home from a parent who did. The last time I remember a gun show was involved was Columbine, back in the Clinton administration. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:38:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It says that only about 13 states have laws that require a license or permit. Yup no crime there ;-) (Chicago, Detroit, DC, Newark) Problem solved. BTW, getting back to what I said before, how many time was the gun charge actually prosecuted in these places when a gun crime was committed? |
Trump Seals His Fate
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. HIPPA be damned huh? If there was a "can not buy" attached to your name, who knows what other things you might have trouble doing. Don't even bother saying these databases wound be secure or even that they would be immune from FOIA. I have no problem identifying crazy people or even locking them up like we used to do but I would be in the minority. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com