Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:58:25 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

===

Not so fast there. One of the reasons that it took so long to hammer
out the original constitution is that the smaller states did not want
to be dominated by the larger ones. That's why we have two senators
per state regardless of population among other things. There are a
*lot* of people who do not want to be governed by the concepts and
needs of the big population centers but unfortunately that seems to be
the trend of things.

The ironic thing these days is the "Democrats" are the least
"democratic". They prefer rule by SCOTUS decision to rule by
referendum. (until it doesn't go their way)
If the majority actually did rule, most of their sacred cows would be
hamburger.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

This is worse than I thought. The FBI says only 64% of the murders in
the US lead to an arrest and they don't actually get a conviction on
all of them.
Here is a story on NPR. That should be a liberal enough source for you
lefties.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-murders-in-america-go-unresolved

Purchasing a Pistol
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.

You must have missed my follow up note. The real number is 36% of the
murders do not even make it to an arrest much less recovering the
weapon so they do not have a clue where the gun came from even if they
are all registered and the owner was the shooter.
That statistic is even worse when you consider around a third of
murders are domestic/acquaintance killings where the murderer is still
there when the cops get there so they are saying they only catch about
a third of "stranger danger" killers and gang hitters. Those guns are
in the wind. Your registration went in the river with the gun.

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

So you really don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.
You believe what CNN tells you to believe and you refuse to actually
look at the facts

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 11:40 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.




Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

This is worse than I thought. The FBI says only 64% of the murders in
the US lead to an arrest and they don't actually get a conviction on
all of them.
Here is a story on NPR. That should be a liberal enough source for you
lefties.
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-murders-in-america-go-unresolved


So two-thirds lead to an arrest. The third that does not means it's not
worth trying in your mind? Strange logic.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 9:58 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I thought that in our system of government, majority rules.

===

Not so fast there. One of the reasons that it took so long to hammer
out the original constitution is that the smaller states did not want
to be dominated by the larger ones. That's why we have two senators
per state regardless of population among other things. There are a
*lot* of people who do not want to be governed by the concepts and
needs of the big population centers but unfortunately that seems to be
the trend of things.

That's already been factored in before votes in the House of
Representatives takes place and, in most cases, a simple majority rules.
Some issues require a "super majority" but that is rare.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 10:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:10:37 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, said the changes were
"all about burnishing the president’s legacy and boosting Democrat enthusiasm in a
presidential election year."

I totally agree.

===

I call it political theater.


Most controversial issue are. It's how politics works and how
support for issues is gained. Some politicians do it better than others.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.

You must have missed my follow up note. The real number is 36% of the
murders do not even make it to an arrest much less recovering the
weapon so they do not have a clue where the gun came from even if they
are all registered and the owner was the shooter.
That statistic is even worse when you consider around a third of
murders are domestic/acquaintance killings where the murderer is still
there when the cops get there so they are saying they only catch about
a third of "stranger danger" killers and gang hitters. Those guns are
in the wind. Your registration went in the river with the gun.

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

So you really don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion.
You believe what CNN tells you to believe and you refuse to actually
look at the facts


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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."

Purchasing a Pistol
 

In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 2:25 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."


I am a gun owner but I don't consider myself a gun nut.

I never owned a firearm when we had kids living with us. Didn't buy my
first gun until 2009 and did so only at the recommendation of
a lawyer friend because I owned and ran a guitar shop and often had
large sums of cash on me. I also had been thinking about getting
a permit and gun simply because my wife and I are now older and not
quite as physically capable as we were years ago in terms of defending
ourselves. So, basically the guns serve as a potential (but unlikely)
home invasion defense. Most of the time they sit in a safe that
I can guarantee even Greg couldn't "crack" unless he used dynamite. :-)

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 2:48 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.



Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 22:40:28 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:23:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 12:17:39 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

After all, about 90% of gun murderers use guns that were
legally purchased.

That is bull****. They don't even solve 90% of the murders, much less
find and trace the weapon.

So what? You can't name any recent gun mass murderer who
didn't use a legally purchased gun. Go ahead and try.
Might be over 95%. Prove otherwise.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
No difference at all.
Just get used to it.

You are talking about something less than 1% of the murders. There are
~11,000 a year and the news makers account for less than 100.

Because mass murder brings it home. 20 bodies of little
1st graders slaughtered by a legally purchased rifle tends
to do that.

Go look at the number of unsolved murders in the big cities where most
of these people fall. Then get back to me. If you want to "Harry out"
I will go get the FBI UCR and do it myself. I have the 2013 in a
spreadsheet as we speak.

I don't need your spreadsheets. I asked you a question.
What's the difference in background checking you, or Harry,
or Nancy Lanza, or Syed Rizwan Farook?
None.
It's the same with the city gang murders. Unless the guns
used in those murders were stolen from the factory, the
vast majority of them were legally purchased by dopes.
Then sold to other dopes.
It's all smoke and mirrors until the Feds crack down on gun
ownership. The only way gun deaths will be reduced is by
making it onerous for the average guy - who is a dope - to
own a gun. Won't happen for a long while.
Just get used to being on the dope side of the fight.
The mass gun murders will continue, and the city shooting
murders will continue. You'll keep defending that as the
"cost of freedom." You're already used to it, since you
compile worthless spreadsheets in defense.
Me, my hands are clean. Never bought a gun. Don't want to
support the death industry.


You finally made a statement that is *almost* correct: "It's all smoke and mirrors
until the Feds crack down on gun ownership."

Just insert the word 'illegal' in front of 'gun ownership', and you'll have gotten it
right.

Or, stick to ISIS.

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/16 6:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 2:48 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.



Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

There will be no letup from the NRA and its gun-humpers

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?

I have yet to go to a gun show where background checks were not performed on the spot
by the dealers selling guns. And, I've been to a bunch of gun shows.

Individuals selling a gun out of their trunk (the loophole?) couldn't do a background
check if they wanted to. Remember, Greg (another who says nothing can be done?)
suggested a while back to allow anyone to run the background check program. Why not?
But right now it's not possible.

Kinda stupid, huh?

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 8:47 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/6/16 6:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 2:48 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.



Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

There will be no letup from the NRA and its gun-humpers
I know you don't like the NRA but that doesn't mean you aren't a gun-humper.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:56:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?


The "gun show" rhetoric is really flawed since the transactions CNN
participated in were outside the actual gun show.
They had to go on a 4 state road drip to find a couple of people who
were willing to break the law. So what? They started this quest with
the conclusion in mind and searched for the proof on a 600 mile drive.
I am sure there were plenty of law breakers right in downtown Atlanta
who would have sold them an illegal gun. They could have picked up
some illegal drugs and got a hooker in the same area.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 10:12 AM, 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.

You need to take the guns out of the hands of people who are likely to
commit crimes with them. Reducing the number of guns isn't going to
accomplish that. His comment was still stupid (IMO). Taking Luddite's
guns away from him won't accomplish anything.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?


I ask again, if that is your goal, why not just open up the background
check to private citizens? Is that too easy?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:17:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:25:18 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."

This country was founded by gun nuts

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:56:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.



Ok. Then let me ask this: If the sellers of those guns at the gun
shows had been required to do a background check on the buyer (making
them liable as well for breaking federal law) how many of them would
have made the transaction without even asking for identification?


The "gun show" rhetoric is really flawed since the transactions CNN
participated in were outside the actual gun show.
They had to go on a 4 state road drip to find a couple of people who
were willing to break the law. So what? They started this quest with
the conclusion in mind and searched for the proof on a 600 mile drive.
I am sure there were plenty of law breakers right in downtown Atlanta
who would have sold them an illegal gun. They could have picked up
some illegal drugs and got a hooker in the same area.



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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:02 AM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/6/2016 10:12 AM, 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.

You need to take the guns out of the hands of people who are likely to
commit crimes with them. Reducing the number of guns isn't going to
accomplish that. His comment was still stupid (IMO). Taking Luddite's
guns away from him won't accomplish anything.


I agree with you and one way to take the guns out of the hands of people
who are likely to commit crimes with them is to have mandatory
background checks across the board. It won't stop *all* illegal
transfers but it, along with some records of custody may start to reduce
the number in unqualified people's hands.

But, I know the naysayers will now jump in and cite that because it
doesn't solve everything, it's not worth doing ... or at least considering.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:58:21 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/6/2016 2:25 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."


I am a gun owner but I don't consider myself a gun nut.

I never owned a firearm when we had kids living with us. Didn't buy my
first gun until 2009 and did so only at the recommendation of
a lawyer friend because I owned and ran a guitar shop and often had
large sums of cash on me. I also had been thinking about getting
a permit and gun simply because my wife and I are now older and not
quite as physically capable as we were years ago in terms of defending
ourselves. So, basically the guns serve as a potential (but unlikely)
home invasion defense. Most of the time they sit in a safe that
I can guarantee even Greg couldn't "crack" unless he used dynamite. :-)


You are not making much sense now. You have a gun to protect against
"home invasion" but it is in a safe.
Are you planning on them calling for an appointment? ;-)

BTW have you ever seen what a 14" cutoff saw does with a diamond blade
in it? Concrete and steel is certainly no match for it.

The first thing a thief will have to do at my house will be to know
where to even look. One thing about large scale renovations is it
allows you to create "hidey holes" in unexpected places ;-)

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:23:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

Yeah, lets create 20 or 30 million instant criminals.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:00:48 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/5/2016 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:07:39 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:53:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Not sure about them being a federal felony. Were the sellers officially
"dealers"? As I understand current federal laws, if
they are not dealers, a background check is not required. Correct me
if I am wrong please.

===

I believe the federal felony occurred whrn they crossed state lines.

That was the second felony. Buying a gun in a state you are not a
resident of was the first one. The seller could be accused of not
doing his due diligence in finding out where the buyer lived but the
buyer knew he was not in his home state. Even attempting to buy the
gun and being turned down is a crime.

I doubt any individual has ever been prosecuted under this law unless
it was part of a larger interstate trafficking investigation. These
guys are looking for a table full (or a garage full) of guns that will
make the NBC nightly news, not one guy selling one gun ... no matter
how many times he does it.


I just asked Wayne a question that I'll repeat here. If those gun show
sellers were required to do a background check on the buyer, how many of
those sales would have happened? Executing the sale would also make
the seller criminally negligent, wouldn't it?


I ask again, if that is your goal, why not just open up the background
check to private citizens? Is that too easy?



I don't have a problem with that. It has to be a double edged though,
meaning someone who sells or transfers a gun to someone else without
doing the background check ... or transfers the gun even though the
background check found the buyer to be not eligible, the seller has some
culpability should the gun end up being used in a crime. It will
require a data base and registry of owners, something that few people
with guns are willing to accept.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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 just said he doesn't object to "jumping through
hoops" in order to have one along with the permit. I agree with his
comment that is probably one of the most meaningful ones made here so far:

"Guns deserve respect".

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 02:17:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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

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.


Depends. Some companies have specific language in the insurance
contract that excludes coverage if you make stealing the car too easy.
Probably more of an issue in locations like mine where people are
tempted to start the car and leave it running in the driveway to warm up
before heading off to work.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 01:25:18 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Some people are only concerned with and support laws or regulations
that protects *them* or their interests. Laws or regulations
that don't concern them are unnecessary and the cost to enforce
them a personal burden in their minds.

You could have just said "gun nut."

This country was founded by gun nuts


Now it's run by smart phones and apps.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:39:47 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/6/2016 8:47 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/6/16 6:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/6/2016 2:48 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Your position is an honest one, although a bit simple.
Just don't have guns.


Not true. I have and want the right to own firearms.
But I see nothing wrong with having to jump though hoops to
exercise that right.
A gun demands respect.

The other side of the argument, expressed here by a few,
says that basically *nothing* can be done to reduce gun deaths,
so why bother trying?

Somewhere, in the middle, a reasonable and responsible course
exists. We'll never eliminate crime or murders but it's irresponsible
to not address obvious loopholes or problems with the laws we have.

Hard to get folks to the "middle" when they won't give an
inch. It'll take many more mass murders to move 'em.



Probably and if and when they occur (that really have nothing to do
with background checks and gun purchase loopholes in the laws) there
will eventually be an emotional over-reaction with far more draconian
restrictions ... perhaps even outright bans in many areas ... all
because the NRA and those who worship it won't budge an inch on some
fundamentally basic loopholes.

There will be no letup from the NRA and its gun-humpers
I know you don't like the NRA but that doesn't mean you aren't a gun-humper.

Sure doesn't.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!