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.

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?

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".

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."

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

In article ,
says...

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

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

In article ,
says...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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

On 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!