Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:36:18 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

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.

Horse****.

What efforts to improve enforcement have been denied by conservatives?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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!