Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

It was an eye opener to see how many murders go unsolved here. I was
really surprised. When you take into account that at least a third are
not really "who done it" crimes it does demonstrate the futility of
gun control as a crime control measure because these murders take
place in cities with the strictest gun control laws..

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

Since most of them are acquaintance murders where the killer is still
there when the cops arrive, I am not sure any of these proposed
changes will have any effect at all. These are also more likely to be
the murders that involve weapons other than guns.
We do not see a lot of actual analysis of murder because the numbers
would not help advance anyone's agenda.
The data is there but nobody seems to do much more than cherry pick
out the stat they need to make their point.
The things that actually rile up the various groups are usually
anomalies.
The fact is black people usually kill black people (almost half of the
murders)
White people kill white people (usually by someone they know) and most
kids are killed by their parents.
It is pretty hard to drum up a scare campaign with that tho.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:35:52 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



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


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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:43 AM, wrote:
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? ;-)

You must have missed "most of the time". I have several guns.
Not all are in the safe *all* of the time. At least one is within
an arm's reach at night.


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.

You haven't seen my safe. First, you would have to find it. Second,
it's not your average home safe. Don't know about the top, sides or
bottom because I can't get to them from the outside but the door is
about 2 and a half inches thick. Dynamite would probably be faster and
less noisy.



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 1/6/2016 11:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
whoa fully
You've been around Horses toooo long. ;-)

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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



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


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


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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 11:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.


Removing career criminals from society permanently will produce far
better gun crime statistics than O'Bama's plan. But that's not how
liberals fly. Kill em with kindness (rehab) and penalize the good guys
is their M O.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 12:39 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/6/2016 11:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
whoa fully
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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

My next door neighbor was a FFL until he died.

Well that certainly would end his career.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

My next door neighbor was a FFL until he died.

Well that certainly would end his career.



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

Ban idiots, not guns!

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

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

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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

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

===

You forgot spears, cross bows and motor vehicles.

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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

===

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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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



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


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


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


===

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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

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


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




Majority does not rule. One of the benefits.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

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

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

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

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

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

Ban idiots, not guns!

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the easiest way is to just steal it.


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

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

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

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


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


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


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





Yes.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

Now that's just plain stupid.


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


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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

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

===

You forgot spears, cross bows and motor vehicles.

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



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

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On 1/6/2016 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:45:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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



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


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


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


===

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


I think we are getting a little carried away here. First of all,
nobody, including me, is advocating that guns be banned. All I am
suggesting is that a system of record keeping be put in place that
keeps track of who owns and is responsible for them and where they go if
sold or transferred. That and a background check either at time of
purchase or transfer or, as done here in MA, at time of permit issuance.

It may seem intrusive to some but I've never felt that part of the
system here is a intrusion on my rights. It seems reasonable and
logical to me. But I also realize I am not of a criminal mindset,
however it's nice to know that the couple of guns that I have sold went
to a person who is at least legally qualified by permit and background
check to receive them.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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."

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:16:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.


You are starting to sound like those people who say that if you
install a receptacle it will void your insurance.

I have never had a policy like that and I lived in DC.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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



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


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


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


That assumes we know where all of the guns are now.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 12:52:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.



If it doesn't change the result, why not?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

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

That is why most federal gun laws are mirrored in state law, which can
actually be a lot more restrictive.
It also tends to give the cops leverage because they can arrest you on
the state charge and turn it over to the feds if they are ****ed at
you where the penalties are much harsher.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:55:18 -0500,
wrote:

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

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



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


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


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


===

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

The world is awash in totally unregulated "parts" too so you don't
need to make the whole gun. There are guys selling AR lowers that are
9x% complete (still just a chunk of metal) Then you drill a couple
holes, grind out a spot or two and buy a "parts kit" for the rest.
To be legal you get a BATF form 1 ... or not.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:15:44 -0500, John H.
wrote:

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

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

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

Why make laws that will not be enforced?

===

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

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

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

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

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

No surprise there. If you are just rolling up numbers, why not do it
in Kansas where you are dealing with farmers instead of risking your
ass going after an inner city drug gang that probably has you
outgunned.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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

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

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

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

===

You forgot spears, cross bows and motor vehicles.

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



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




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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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")

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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 ?

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.

Purchasing a Pistol
 

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.