![]() |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:35:17 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: 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. You say you want "good insurance against the government" and then you want to let the government decide who they are going to let "limit" them. I really think that armed revolt thing is not a very good reason to have the 2d amendment rights anyway but when I hear anti gun people saying it my bull**** detector goes off. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 02:15:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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 ? So "do something, even if it doesn't help" is your answer? Remember the places with the most murders are also the places with the strictest gun laws. I see very little in cost to benefit here. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On 1/7/16 10:57 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:35:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: 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. You say you want "good insurance against the government" and then you want to let the government decide who they are going to let "limit" them. I really think that armed revolt thing is not a very good reason to have the 2d amendment rights anyway but when I hear anti gun people saying it my bull**** detector goes off. I think I agree...that being able to press an armed revolt against the government is not a very good reason for the Second Amendment. It's too bad we let the genie out of the bottle in regard to civilian ownership of large-cap semi-auto rifles and pistols and magazines, because, whether you are hunting or defending yourself, there's really no good reason for anything beyond the average hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver, and there are plenty of hammerless, pocketable revolvers available that'll handle substantial rounds. My favorite by far firearms to shoot are my six shooter, and my lever action and bolt action rifles. Any of them are suitable for defensive use or even hunting small game. |
Purchasing a Pistol
wrote:
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") I did not say coverup. They are ignored for the most part. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:32:45 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: 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") I did not say coverup. They are ignored for the most part. They still get lumped in the stats when they are talking about the cute little white kids who are shot, allowing the public to believe we have a rash of "mass shootings". The FBI goes out of it's way to not make it easy to find out who was killed in the unsolved murders but if they are "citizens" (meaning suburban middle class) an unsolved murder is front page news. The only time "black lives matter" is when they are killed by a white cop. In Ft Myers a white doctor lady, beat to death with a hammer was one of the top 10 stories last year (in the annual rollup). The 6 year old black kid who was killed in a drive by did not make the list. It also wasn't that important in their community because the witnesses refused to testify when the cops caught the killer. That does start to put a better light on the outrageous unclosed rate tho. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:32:24 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/16 10:57 AM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:35:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: 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. You say you want "good insurance against the government" and then you want to let the government decide who they are going to let "limit" them. I really think that armed revolt thing is not a very good reason to have the 2d amendment rights anyway but when I hear anti gun people saying it my bull**** detector goes off. I think I agree...that being able to press an armed revolt against the government is not a very good reason for the Second Amendment. It's too bad we let the genie out of the bottle in regard to civilian ownership of large-cap semi-auto rifles and pistols and magazines, because, whether you are hunting or defending yourself, there's really no good reason for anything beyond the average hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver, and there are plenty of hammerless, pocketable revolvers available that'll handle substantial rounds. My favorite by far firearms to shoot are my six shooter, and my lever action and bolt action rifles. Any of them are suitable for defensive use or even hunting small game. Ah, so now that you've sold your 'assault rifle' of which you were extremely proud, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them. Why should your preferences have any more value than someone else's preferences? Only a few weeks ago your preference was the 'assault rifle'. Heaven knows you made enough posts about it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Purchasing a Pistol
On 1/7/16 1:24 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:32:24 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/7/16 10:57 AM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:35:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: 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. You say you want "good insurance against the government" and then you want to let the government decide who they are going to let "limit" them. I really think that armed revolt thing is not a very good reason to have the 2d amendment rights anyway but when I hear anti gun people saying it my bull**** detector goes off. I think I agree...that being able to press an armed revolt against the government is not a very good reason for the Second Amendment. It's too bad we let the genie out of the bottle in regard to civilian ownership of large-cap semi-auto rifles and pistols and magazines, because, whether you are hunting or defending yourself, there's really no good reason for anything beyond the average hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver, and there are plenty of hammerless, pocketable revolvers available that'll handle substantial rounds. My favorite by far firearms to shoot are my six shooter, and my lever action and bolt action rifles. Any of them are suitable for defensive use or even hunting small game. Ah, so now that you've sold your 'assault rifle' of which you were extremely proud, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them. Why should your preferences have any more value than someone else's preferences? Only a few weeks ago your preference was the 'assault rifle'. Heaven knows you made enough posts about it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15 and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:20:33 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: What the Tea Party 'Publicans like Herring lack is...empathy. And besides nothing, what do you lack, Harry? === Harry doesn't know what he doesn't know and therein lies the lack. |
Purchasing a Pistol
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/7/16 1:24 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:32:24 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 1/7/16 10:57 AM, wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:35:17 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: 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. You say you want "good insurance against the government" and then you want to let the government decide who they are going to let "limit" them. I really think that armed revolt thing is not a very good reason to have the 2d amendment rights anyway but when I hear anti gun people saying it my bull**** detector goes off. I think I agree...that being able to press an armed revolt against the government is not a very good reason for the Second Amendment. It's too bad we let the genie out of the bottle in regard to civilian ownership of large-cap semi-auto rifles and pistols and magazines, because, whether you are hunting or defending yourself, there's really no good reason for anything beyond the average hunting rifle, shotgun, or revolver, and there are plenty of hammerless, pocketable revolvers available that'll handle substantial rounds. My favorite by far firearms to shoot are my six shooter, and my lever action and bolt action rifles. Any of them are suitable for defensive use or even hunting small game. Ah, so now that you've sold your 'assault rifle' of which you were extremely proud, civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them. Why should your preferences have any more value than someone else's preferences? Only a few weeks ago your preference was the 'assault rifle'. Heaven knows you made enough posts about it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! How would you possibly know what my "preference" was? I owned an AR15 and I sold it. It was a nice rifle, for sure, but I wouldn't mind not being able to buy a semi-auto firearm of any kind if it helped save lives. How would I *not* know? Gosh, krause, how many dozens of stories did you tell about your rifle and the parts you bought for it, not to mention the numerous pictures of targets you supposedly hit with it? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com