Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

The President said yesterday that cities in America that have the most gun laws have the least amount of gun violence. ............I guess he hasn't read the Chicago tribune or the Sun Times lately.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/2015 6:46 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
If you look at the statistics, the states with the most or most
restrictive gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.
O'Bama didn't say that, you did.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/15 7:07 AM, Tim wrote:
The President said yesterday that cities in America that have the most gun laws have the least amount of gun violence. ............I guess he hasn't read the Chicago tribune or the Sun Times lately.



No, Tim, that's not what he said.

"We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun
deaths."

If you look at the statistics, the states with the most or most
restrictive gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.


http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...te-per-100000/


Your state, Illinois, has a death rate due to injuries from firearms of
8.6 per 100,000 inhabitants...or about the national average.

The rate in Alabama is 17.6, Alaska is 19.8, Arkansas 16.8, D.C. 8.9,
Connecticut 4.4, Louisiana 19.3, Maryland 9.7, Virginia 10.2, South
Carolina 15.2.

Perhaps you should listen more carefully when the president speaks, or
find a news source that is less tilted towards the NRA.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/cri...ile_touch=true

This thug had just previously been arrested for domestic abide and firearms violations. He then got another gun. Obviously he didn't need a background check and 3 day waiting period to rearm himself

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 04:07:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

The President said yesterday that cities in America that have the most gun laws have the least amount of gun violence. ............I guess he hasn't read the Chicago tribune or the Sun Times lately.

He really had his head up his ass with that one.

He didn't even look at statistics from his current 'home town'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/2015 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands



I think people expect too much too quickly when an attempt is made to
address a social problem. Your state's "tougher" gun laws are fairly
recent. They are not going to have much effect on those who already
have firearms or know who to pay to get one.

It may take a generation or two in order to start seeing positive
results. You have to start somewhere. The same old, same old NRA
excuses as to why they won't work are wearing thin.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:46:19 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/2/15 7:07 AM, Tim wrote:
The President said yesterday that cities in America that have the most gun laws have the least amount of gun violence. ............I guess he hasn't read the Chicago tribune or the Sun Times lately.



No, Tim, that's not what he said.

"We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun
deaths."

If you look at the statistics, the states with the most or most
restrictive gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.


http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...te-per-100000/


Your state, Illinois, has a death rate due to injuries from firearms of
8.6 per 100,000 inhabitants...or about the national average.

The rate in Alabama is 17.6, Alaska is 19.8, Arkansas 16.8, D.C. 8.9,
Connecticut 4.4, Louisiana 19.3, Maryland 9.7, Virginia 10.2, South
Carolina 15.2.

Perhaps you should listen more carefully when the president speaks, or
find a news source that is less tilted towards the NRA.


Perhaps you should focus on the cities, where the problems really exist, and not lump
in all the farmers.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:31:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands



I think people expect too much too quickly when an attempt is made to
address a social problem. Your state's "tougher" gun laws are fairly
recent. They are not going to have much effect on those who already
have firearms or know who to pay to get one.

It may take a generation or two in order to start seeing positive
results. You have to start somewhere. The same old, same old NRA
excuses as to why they won't work are wearing thin.


Chicago has had tough gun laws for 50 years

If we are just waiting for a generational change, just wait. In spite
of the hyperbole in the media, the actual murder rate has been in
decline for years.

The fact also remains the biggest "stranger danger" is still
surrounding the drug business. Nobody on the left wants to talk about
that.

The mass shooting thing is media driven as much as anything. These are
unstable people who are suicidal and want to go out as a famous
person. Shoot up a soft target and you can be the only thing on the
news for weeks and the object of google searches forever.

I don't know how you address it but I doubt anyone will come up with a
"law" solution that is not going to be challenged from the right and
the left. The most obvious thing is trying to stop these guys before
they start shooting but that is hard to do without infringing on their
rights. You can't arrest someone until they actually commit a crime.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:31:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands



I think people expect too much too quickly when an attempt is made to
address a social problem. Your state's "tougher" gun laws are fairly
recent. They are not going to have much effect on those who already
have firearms or know who to pay to get one.

It may take a generation or two in order to start seeing positive
results. You have to start somewhere. The same old, same old NRA
excuses as to why they won't work are wearing thin.


Chicago has had tough gun laws for 50 years


WTF? Indiana is ten minutes away by car. Gun shows galore.
Criminals don't care about Chicago laws, nor do the legal sellers
at Indiana gun shows.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:35:55 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:31:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands



I think people expect too much too quickly when an attempt is made to
address a social problem. Your state's "tougher" gun laws are fairly
recent. They are not going to have much effect on those who already
have firearms or know who to pay to get one.

It may take a generation or two in order to start seeing positive
results. You have to start somewhere. The same old, same old NRA
excuses as to why they won't work are wearing thin.


Chicago has had tough gun laws for 50 years


WTF? Indiana is ten minutes away by car. Gun shows galore.
Criminals don't care about Chicago laws, nor do the legal sellers
at Indiana gun shows.

Bull****, they all come to Virginia for their guns, buying them out of car trunks.
Just ask your twin, krause.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/2015 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:31:01 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 8:10 AM, Tim wrote:

Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands



I think people expect too much too quickly when an attempt is made to
address a social problem. Your state's "tougher" gun laws are fairly
recent. They are not going to have much effect on those who already
have firearms or know who to pay to get one.

It may take a generation or two in order to start seeing positive
results. You have to start somewhere. The same old, same old NRA
excuses as to why they won't work are wearing thin.


Chicago has had tough gun laws for 50 years

If we are just waiting for a generational change, just wait. In spite
of the hyperbole in the media, the actual murder rate has been in
decline for years.

The fact also remains the biggest "stranger danger" is still
surrounding the drug business. Nobody on the left wants to talk about
that.

The mass shooting thing is media driven as much as anything. These are
unstable people who are suicidal and want to go out as a famous
person. Shoot up a soft target and you can be the only thing on the
news for weeks and the object of google searches forever.

I don't know how you address it but I doubt anyone will come up with a
"law" solution that is not going to be challenged from the right and
the left. The most obvious thing is trying to stop these guys before
they start shooting but that is hard to do without infringing on their
rights. You can't arrest someone until they actually commit a crime.



You are right about Illinois gun law history. I confused the more
recent (2012) revision that allowed the issuance of concealed carry
permits, due to a finding that the prohibition that existed before was
found to be unconstitutional.

Same thing happened in Massachusetts years ago. At one time it was
almost impossible for the average citizen to get a concealed carry permit.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.


We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/2015 6:25 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.


We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?


I'll support any reasonable gun control legislation that focuses on
keeping guns (and ammunition) out of the hands of those who shouldn't
have access to them. Nothing is perfect but it's an attempt. To simply
give up and, in your world "get used to it" is contrary to any sense of
responsible, adult thinking.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/15 6:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 6:25 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.


We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?


I'll support any reasonable gun control legislation that focuses on
keeping guns (and ammunition) out of the hands of those who shouldn't
have access to them. Nothing is perfect but it's an attempt. To simply
give up and, in your world "get used to it" is contrary to any sense of
responsible, adult thinking.




Hey, in the words of your former favorite GOP presidential nominee wannabe:

"Stuff happens."

So, why worry about it.

:)

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

In article G--dnVHjd77UlJLLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 10/2/2015 6:25 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.


We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?


I'll support any reasonable gun control legislation that focuses on
keeping guns (and ammunition) out of the hands of those who shouldn't
have access to them. Nothing is perfect but it's an attempt. To simply
give up and, in your world "get used to it" is contrary to any sense of
responsible, adult thinking.

WTF? I don't have the power to change anything
except with my vote. So I'll be used to it until it
ends. I'm not immune to the loss of innocent lives.
But don't expect me to go out and start shooting
something up because of it. That's for gun owners.
Hell, the proponents of gun control don't even have
the balls to say gun control. It's "gun safety."
You're full of **** too, using weasel words like
"reasonable."
The only answer to gun violence is strictly enforced
FEDERAL registration, with stiff prison terms for
violations. IOW, reduction of the number of guns.
Until that happens, just get used to it.
You can always vote for HRC, who seems the only one
willing to address gun control.
Or go for Jeb, with his "stuff happens."
That's real adult thinking.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On 10/2/15 7:23 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article G--dnVHjd77UlJLLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 10/2/2015 6:25 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.


We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?


I'll support any reasonable gun control legislation that focuses on
keeping guns (and ammunition) out of the hands of those who shouldn't
have access to them. Nothing is perfect but it's an attempt. To simply
give up and, in your world "get used to it" is contrary to any sense of
responsible, adult thinking.

WTF? I don't have the power to change anything
except with my vote. So I'll be used to it until it
ends. I'm not immune to the loss of innocent lives.
But don't expect me to go out and start shooting
something up because of it. That's for gun owners.
Hell, the proponents of gun control don't even have
the balls to say gun control. It's "gun safety."
You're full of **** too, using weasel words like
"reasonable."
The only answer to gun violence is strictly enforced
FEDERAL registration, with stiff prison terms for
violations. IOW, reduction of the number of guns.
Until that happens, just get used to it.
You can always vote for HRC, who seems the only one
willing to address gun control.
Or go for Jeb, with his "stuff happens."
That's real adult thinking.



The Republicans, all of them, are scared stiff of white men.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

Tim wrote:
Right now Chicago is a bullet throwing blood bath and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. My statement still stands


That's true, but they look at IL as a whole and it skews the
statistics. Chicago is a mess. Illinois - not so much.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

Boating All Out wrote:
In article G--dnVHjd77UlJLLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...
On 10/2/2015 6:25 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article u4ydneksipm_n5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

And hope like hell that any young relatives of yours
don't get shot up when they report to school.

We're all in the same boat.

If it's another guy's kid or grandkid it's ok with you apparently.
I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote.
How about you, Mr Pistol?

I'll support any reasonable gun control legislation that focuses on
keeping guns (and ammunition) out of the hands of those who shouldn't
have access to them. Nothing is perfect but it's an attempt. To simply
give up and, in your world "get used to it" is contrary to any sense of
responsible, adult thinking.
WTF? I don't have the power to change anything
except with my vote. So I'll be used to it until it
ends. I'm not immune to the loss of innocent lives.
But don't expect me to go out and start shooting
something up because of it. That's for gun owners.
Hell, the proponents of gun control don't even have
the balls to say gun control. It's "gun safety."
You're full of **** too, using weasel words like
"reasonable."
The only answer to gun violence is strictly enforced
FEDERAL registration, with stiff prison terms for
violations. IOW, reduction of the number of guns.
Until that happens, just get used to it.
You can always vote for HRC, who seems the only one
willing to address gun control.
Or go for Jeb, with his "stuff happens."
That's real adult thinking.


How about this, Kevin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny3bOmey-BE

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:25:46 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote


.... even if it does nothing.
I see

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

In article 64lu0bdfnfsrbvcho2hn0afb7pulsg13vm@
4ax.com, says...


How would registration do anything? These guys usually die at the
scene. We don't need a gun trace to find them.

I told you once before. Make registration onerous.
So onerous that only gun nut heros like you and Harry
will have the patience to go through it.
They'll be plenty enough gun nuts packing to take
care of the occasional rogue.
Just - cough, cough - like they always have.
Even with the added expense of the required gun owner
liability insurance.
Any sane adult will still be able to arm himself, but
you'll cut out the 95% of gun nut owners who are riff
raff. That includes the mother of the Sandy Hook
shooter.
And lengthy prison sentences for any violators of gun
laws. Guns will be safe, legal - and rare.
Simply put, reduce the number of gun owners.
Guns don't kill, gun owners do.
All Federal law, BTW.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 00:44:32 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article 64lu0bdfnfsrbvcho2hn0afb7pulsg13vm@
4ax.com, says...


How would registration do anything? These guys usually die at the
scene. We don't need a gun trace to find them.

I told you once before. Make registration onerous.
So onerous that only gun nut heros like you and Harry
will have the patience to go through it.
They'll be plenty enough gun nuts packing to take
care of the occasional rogue.
Just - cough, cough - like they always have.
Even with the added expense of the required gun owner
liability insurance.
Any sane adult will still be able to arm himself, but
you'll cut out the 95% of gun nut owners who are riff
raff. That includes the mother of the Sandy Hook
shooter.
And lengthy prison sentences for any violators of gun
laws. Guns will be safe, legal - and rare.
Simply put, reduce the number of gun owners.
Guns don't kill, gun owners do.
All Federal law, BTW.



What happens to the 300-400 million that are already out there? Does
the government buy them at fair market? Do they just disappear into
the black market? How many instant criminals would you create?
We don't have that many jails.

I don't suppose you are suggesting a "taking". We will both be dead
before that gets through the courts.

Pardon me mr. President, but...
 

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 00:12:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:25:46 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I'll support ANY anti-gun legislation with my vote


... even if it does nothing.
I see

....even if it does nothing but create a bureaucracy.

Fixed.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!