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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.