On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:07:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/6/2016 12:59 PM, John H. wrote:

My next door neighbor was a FFL until he died.

Well that certainly would end his career.



His wife gave me a very nice Winchester Model 94 after he died. No background check.
Shame on her.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:30:38 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Is the law enforcement in Chicago responsible for enforcing federal law?
I don't know.

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

Luddite's question is one of jurisdiction. Only the Feds are
responsible for enforcing federal law, i.e., The FBI, BATF, Secret
Service, marshalls, etc.

If you pass enough laws eventually everyone will be a criminal in one
way or another, sort of like prohibition. Some people will be
prosecuted but the vast majority will not. Criminal who specialize in
breaking the law will profit from it.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:54:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course not. But, according to this, about 69 percent of murders
committed in the USA in 2012 were done with guns. Banning them,
(which nobody, including me is advocating) would certainly have an
affect on those stats. Check out:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I know. Murderers will just use more clubs, hammers and knives, right?

===

You forgot spears, cross bows and motor vehicles.

My suggestion is to remove all references to gun violence from the
mass media - television, movies, music, pulp fiction, etc. Over time
I think it would have far more influence than gun control.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:33:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

What about the 2/3rds that *are* solved? Is your glass two thirds full
or one third empty?

===

Greg's point is that more than half of those 2/3rds are no brainers
that require no work at all because the perpatrator is self evident.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:45:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:35:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



So what? It still demonstrated how easy one with a hair across his ass
can buy a gun. Or two. Or three.


The point is, if someone was willing to break an existing federal law,
why wouldn't they break a new federal law?


Because a chain of custody that automatically exists because of the
background check allows a trace as to where that gun came from, who
owned it, who sold it, when and to whom.


===

Has it ever occurred to you that anyone with basic machine shop skills
and tools can make a decent gun? If you start making guns difficult
to buy, it's not hard to imagine a large underground cottage industry
starting up - very similar to what happens with illegal drugs. Are
you also going to regulate lathes, milling machines and grinders?

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/5/2016 4:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:45:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Since it has virtually no affect
on responsible gun ownership, why not?

That is typical northeastern thinking.
People out west are not interested in driving a hundred miles with
their neighbor to an FFL just so he can sell him his shotgun.

We are trying to impose a failed solution to urban crime on people who
do not have that crime problem.
We might as well install parking meters in the Everglades to fix
parking problems in downtown Boston.


If 90 percent of the US population favor universal background checks
for gun purchases, it's certainly not restricted to "northeastern
thinking". I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.




Majority does not rule. One of the benefits.

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:28:47 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:30:38 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Is the law enforcement in Chicago responsible for enforcing federal law?
I don't know.

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

Luddite's question is one of jurisdiction. Only the Feds are
responsible for enforcing federal law, i.e., The FBI, BATF, Secret
Service, marshalls, etc.

If you pass enough laws eventually everyone will be a criminal in one
way or another, sort of like prohibition. Some people will be
prosecuted but the vast majority will not. Criminal who specialize in
breaking the law will profit from it.

From what I read, the cities make their own choices.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ral-gun-crimes

A federal gun crime is, after all, a crime.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 1:16 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:11:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 7:35 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:59:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:54:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Understood. Just pointing out that Harry is absolutely correct in
stating that there are many ways of acquiring a gun without any kind
of background check. That's just not right, IMO.

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


And if the owner allows it to be easily stolen by not taking reasonable
precautions to prevent the theft, he or she should share in a degree of
liability if the stolen gun is used in a crime.

Not talking about being "held up" or otherwise having the gun taken
beyond reasonable control. I am talking about leaving it laying around,
unsecured and having it swiped. That is not responsible ownership.

Gun ownership is a right. The 2nd has been interpreted to mean that.
But a "right" is not devoid of responsibility.

Now we are blaming the victim. Even the states with "gun protection"
laws usually include a trigger lock in the prescribed protections.
That as nothing to do with theft protection or even much more than a
casual use. I was able to defeat the trigger lock that came with the
last pistol I bought in a few minutes ... non-destructively, using
stuff you would find in most people's desk drawer.
Even if you have one of those $400 safes, a guy with an angle grinder
will be in it in a few minutes. They are usually 16 gauge steel.
It all depends on how valuable the collection is doesn't it?


Maybe you missed "unsecured" in my comment (above). If a gun owner has
taken reasonable precautions to prevent theft or unauthorized use he/she
shouldn't be held responsible for what it may be used for if stolen. I
was referring to those who *don't* take reasonable precautions. That is
what those laws are designed for. The fact that you happen to be an
expert in cracking safes or defeating locks is not the point.


If you are talking about thieves, it is what they do for a living.


If your car is stolen because you left the keys in the ignition will
your insurance company pay off on the loss?





Yes.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 9:36 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/6/2016 2:02 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
The obvious answer to reducing gun deaths is to reduce the
number of guns. Sorry.

Now that's just plain stupid.


It's not really stupid. It's logical. And, if those opposed to
*any* kind of constructive discussion or attempts to reduce gun
deaths and crime with reasonable gun control laws, it may just come to
that eventually.


The bad guys are going to get guns anyway. Look at Mexico. Almost
impossible to own a handgun, and rifle owners have to buy the hunting and
target ammo from the army. How many fully automatic weapons are you
hearing about and all the narco groups killing lawman and others? Most of
our problems are related to drugs. Yes, mental health cases make the news
with mass shootings, but very few in the overall amount.

On 1/6/2016 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:54:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Of course not. But, according to this, about 69 percent of murders
committed in the USA in 2012 were done with guns. Banning them,
(which nobody, including me is advocating) would certainly have an
affect on those stats. Check out:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

I know. Murderers will just use more clubs, hammers and knives, right?

===

You forgot spears, cross bows and motor vehicles.

My suggestion is to remove all references to gun violence from the
mass media - television, movies, music, pulp fiction, etc. Over time
I think it would have far more influence than gun control.



I agree with that but it's hard to "cover up" mass shootings by a
deranged person ... and currently it seems difficult to ignore
minorities being shot by police. All puts a focus on guns as an
instrument of death.