On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:34:00 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:

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.




He'll, we ignore most mass shootings. When 10 or 30 people are shot on a
weekend in Chicago, etc. with maybe 3-4 muerto, that is mostly ignoring
mass shootings involved with drugs.

They are not covering up these "mass shooting" deaths, they just lump
the drive bys in with the school shootings to rack up scary numbers
without mentioning these are people nobody cares about getting shot
and they don't try too hard to catch the shooters. (hence the
miserable percentage of "closures")

In article ,
says...

On 1/6/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:54:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Banning guns will not eliminate murder.



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?

They did in Australia.



There you go! Excellent point. Since a lack of guns means that
murderers will shift to using more clubs, hammers and knives which are
a far more painful way to die, we may as well lift all restrictions on
guns since it's quick, more efficient and a more humane way to kill someone.

Murder rate is down in Australia since they banned some gun
types and made it more onerous to own a gun.
But it was never high to begin with, so it can't be
compared to the U.S. The U.S. has to solve it's own
problems.
It's much easier to kill with a gun. Don't even have to
get your hands dirty when murdering. Very nice.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:03:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 11:12 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:14:06 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it

Since you just want to ban guns, the facts you should look at is the
wonderful success of banning drugs. That worked well didn't it?


I don't think BOA said he *wants* to ban guns. In fact, he said he'd
like to have one.

He said "Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry."

So how the hell do you think that means I want to ban guns?
I've said explicitly that I want the 2nd kept.
It's good insurance against government.
Actually I forgot about the Marlin .22 semi-auto rifle I
bought for rabbit hunting years ago at Sears.
But I don't rabbit hunt now, so I have no need for a gun.
And I don't want to support the death industry.
Got plenty of guys like you for that.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:22:04 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 1/6/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:54:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Banning guns will not eliminate murder.



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?

They did in Australia.



There you go! Excellent point. Since a lack of guns means that
murderers will shift to using more clubs, hammers and knives which are
a far more painful way to die, we may as well lift all restrictions on
guns since it's quick, more efficient and a more humane way to kill someone.

Murder rate is down in Australia since they banned some gun

The slope of the murder rate had been going down for a decade before
the ban and it continued at about the same rate after.
The murder rate is going down here too at about the same rate and we
add a few million guns a year. The most popular rifle in the US now is
the AR15 platform in various shapes and calibers.

types and made it more onerous to own a gun.
But it was never high to begin with, so it can't be
compared to the U.S. The U.S. has to solve it's own
problems.
It's much easier to kill with a gun. Don't even have to
get your hands dirty when murdering. Very nice.

So what? If people have killing on their mind, they kill, no matter
how hard or messy it is.

Maybe we should be spending this effort trying to find out why people
kill instead to spending too much on the method.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:44:33 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:03:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 11:12 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:14:06 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it

Since you just want to ban guns, the facts you should look at is the
wonderful success of banning drugs. That worked well didn't it?


I don't think BOA said he *wants* to ban guns. In fact, he said he'd
like to have one.

He said "Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry."

So how the hell do you think that means I want to ban guns?
I've said explicitly that I want the 2nd kept.
It's good insurance against government.
Actually I forgot about the Marlin .22 semi-auto rifle I
bought for rabbit hunting years ago at Sears.
But I don't rabbit hunt now, so I have no need for a gun.
And I don't want to support the death industry.
Got plenty of guys like you for that.

I was responding to Richard's comment that you wanted a gun. It is
clear how you really feel, no matter how you quibble about it.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:44:33 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:03:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 11:12 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:14:06 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it

Since you just want to ban guns, the facts you should look at is the
wonderful success of banning drugs. That worked well didn't it?


I don't think BOA said he *wants* to ban guns. In fact, he said he'd
like to have one.

He said "Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry."

So how the hell do you think that means I want to ban guns?
I've said explicitly that I want the 2nd kept.
It's good insurance against government.
Actually I forgot about the Marlin .22 semi-auto rifle I
bought for rabbit hunting years ago at Sears.
But I don't rabbit hunt now, so I have no need for a gun.
And I don't want to support the death industry.
Got plenty of guys like you for that.

I was responding to Richard's comment that you wanted a gun. It is
clear how you really feel, no matter how you quibble about it.

What's the quibble? You said I want to ban guns. I don't.
You're the one who's quibbling.

On 1/6/2016 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:03:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 11:12 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:14:06 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it

Since you just want to ban guns, the facts you should look at is the
wonderful success of banning drugs. That worked well didn't it?


I don't think BOA said he *wants* to ban guns. In fact, he said he'd
like to have one.

He said "Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry."




Yes, he said that but he also said he's not advocating banning them
completely and went on to say he'd like to have a permit and a gun and
wouldn't object to having to go through regulatory hoops to get them.
Basically, he was saying that it should not be so easy to own a gun.
His view was to make the process onerous enough that it will reduce the
number of guns. I am sure BOA will correct me if I have mis-stated his
posted views.

On 1/7/2016 12:55 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:22:04 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 1/6/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:54:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Banning guns will not eliminate murder.



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?

They did in Australia.



There you go! Excellent point. Since a lack of guns means that
murderers will shift to using more clubs, hammers and knives which are
a far more painful way to die, we may as well lift all restrictions on
guns since it's quick, more efficient and a more humane way to kill someone.

Murder rate is down in Australia since they banned some gun

The slope of the murder rate had been going down for a decade before
the ban and it continued at about the same rate after.
The murder rate is going down here too at about the same rate and we
add a few million guns a year. The most popular rifle in the US now is
the AR15 platform in various shapes and calibers.

types and made it more onerous to own a gun.
But it was never high to begin with, so it can't be
compared to the U.S. The U.S. has to solve it's own
problems.
It's much easier to kill with a gun. Don't even have to
get your hands dirty when murdering. Very nice.

So what? If people have killing on their mind, they kill, no matter
how hard or messy it is.


Maybe we should be spending this effort trying to find out why people
kill instead to spending too much on the method.


We will likely never know *all* the reasons why people kill other people
but we know many of them. Drugs, domestic violence, crime in general,
gang wars and mental illnesses are a few. With our population growing
at a rate of one person every 16 seconds or so it is unrealistic to
think we can rehabilitate everyone with problems into law abiding
citizens. So, we have to turn to *how* many of these killings take
place. A gun is swift, easy to use, effective and puts the killer at
minimal risk. If 69 percent of murders are committed with guns, it
seems that a good place to start is to focus on keeping them out of the
hands of people known to have issues or have demonstrated violent
actions. Background checks is the only viable tool to do this right
now. So, rather than throw up our hands and say "nothing can be done",
why not try to chip away at the problem, especially when it has
virtually no affect on those who have not demonstrated any of the
warning signs of violent behavior ?

In article ,
says...

On 1/6/2016 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:03:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 11:12 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:14:06 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

What "facts?" Nothing relevent to this discussion.
No, I just dismissed it

Since you just want to ban guns, the facts you should look at is the
wonderful success of banning drugs. That worked well didn't it?


I don't think BOA said he *wants* to ban guns. In fact, he said he'd
like to have one.

He said "Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry."




Yes, he said that but he also said he's not advocating banning them
completely and went on to say he'd like to have a permit and a gun and
wouldn't object to having to go through regulatory hoops to get them.
Basically, he was saying that it should not be so easy to own a gun.
His view was to make the process onerous enough that it will reduce the
number of guns. I am sure BOA will correct me if I have mis-stated his
posted views.

To be clear, I don't want a gun now. I don't need one.
If I want something to fondle, I'll go to my dog or wife.
Yes, I may want one in the future, and I support the 2nd.
Yes, I want the process of obtaining a gun to be stringent.
I used the wrong word in saying "onerous."
Big deal. As long as guys like Greg are around I won't
have any trouble getting a piece if I want one, even if I
was a criminal of a psycho.
It's easy.
Of course you need to enforce current laws first.
That right there would take care of most of the gun deaths.
But enforcing laws is expensive, so these same right
wingers crying about laws not being enforced, cry about
funding them, so it doesn't happen.
And so it goes.

On 1/6/2016 10:11 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:55:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

You've been around Horses toooo long. ;-)


No ****. Very sensitive subject around here right now. :-)

I still perform my appointed duties though. Feed 'em hay
in the morning after making my old fart deliveries to the
day care place and add 15 gallons of hot water to their
frozen solid water trough. 9 degrees here at 7 am this morning.


Surprised you don't have a heater. The feed stores we were in out west
sold the controller for one in a bubble pack and they had elements.
The temp was in the 40s.



We've had several of those heaters of different designs over the years.
The horses delight in destroying them, just to make my life miserable.