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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.