wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:



I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.


Maybe you get an extra 3 years if caught with a firearm and do not have a
gun safety certificate. Need a certificate as a minor to drive a boat in
a bunch of states

Most of the time the gun charges get dealt away to get the conviction
on the more serious charge. In Florida that is not always so tho. We
had a woman here charged with aggravated assault that might have been
dealt away with a couple years or even probation but the gun charge
made it mandatory 20 years.


I am saying you need to pass a gun safety course before being able to buy a
firearm. Military service would qualify. Hunter safety course would
qualify. CCW course would qualify.

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:04:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:24:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 10:48 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:11:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 3:45 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:21:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:25:20 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Here's a weird one. In Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states, a
15 year old can legally purchase and own a long gun with his/her
parent's permission.


If the parents are OK with it, can't a kid have any gun they want at
any age? Who is going to stop them?
I had my first shotgun at 14-15 when I started to hunt but I had a .22
for years before that. I suppose technically it was my dad's, handed
down from my grandfather but I had free access to it and they sold
ammo at the 7-11.


Fortunately, most parents I know personally have more smarts and a sense
of responsibility to allow their kids at any minor age to own guns.


That is Acela corridor thinking again and big city thinking at that.
In the early 60s hunting was a thing most of my friends did before
they could drive and this was just outside of DC in PG county.
Like I said, the 7-11 sold shotgun shells and .22s
I am sure that sounds strange today but you could walk in the woods
all the way from the DC line behind Eastover shopping center and
Forest Heights to the river, down past where National Harbor is now
and never see a thing but woods. That was 4 or 5 square miles
contiguous with the woods behind my house before they built the
interstate. Typically we did not really do much hunting east of 210
but there were some good quail and rabbit fields before you got there,
pretty much where the right of way for I-495 is now. West of 210 there
was just about anything you could expect to find in Maryland.
The strange thing is there is still a pretty big undeveloped parcel
down there right now.



There are plenty people who hunt in Massachusetts and the areas we've
lived in are probably more heavily wooded than your experience in
Maryland. The last house I lived in with my parents as a kid was
surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of woods and undeveloped land.

I still don't know of any parent I know who would allow a minor child to
have his/her very own gun. BB guns, yes. Firearms ... no.



===

I grew up in a semi-rural area of upstate NY and many of my friends
had their own 22s and/or shot guns. Not one was ever injured or
involved in any gun related incident.


Did your friends have AR-15s and have a Rambo mindset?


Now you have changed the subject then haven't you?
You went from "no minor should ever have anything but a BB gun" to
assuming we want our kid to have an AR. That being said, I am sure out
west where it is relatively safe to shoot one, there are teenagers
with ARs. They would usually start with a .22rf and demonstrate that
they are safe and knowledgable first but there are plenty of people
out in flyover country who understand a gun is a tool.



How have I changed the subject? My point was that you really can't
compare what was common 50 years ago to today. AR-15s had not been
invented that I know of and I don't think a teenager could run down
to the local gun store back then and buy a rifle designed for the
military back then.

I guess you never went to Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria. They
specialized in old military rifles. Granted most were bolt action
because that was what most militaries had but you could also buy an M1
carbine with 20 and 30 round magazines if you had the money or any
number of SA pistols, pretty cheap. I was 19 when I bought my 34
Barretta for $40 and I walked out the door with it. Same with a .38
super 1911.


AR was around. 50 years ago. Basic we used M1 carbine in Air Force.
Probably first time I fired M16 was yearly qualifying in about 1967. We
were not allowed autofire.

On 2/24/18 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:50:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 01:05:25 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:19:14 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:56:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 3:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:58:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 8:46 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:17:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/22/2018 11:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:47:22 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Maybe the fact that the military look alike weapons have extremely high
capacity magazines available.

It is pretty hard to find any kind of gun with a detachable magazine
where they don't have big ones. It is certainly true of the Rugers.



Try to legally buy one in Massachusetts. If you showed up at a range
with one the range safety officer would confiscate it and escort you
from the range ... at least they would at the club I belonged to.


Even with laws as strict as they are in MA, Boston didn't have a very good year in 2017.

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/teen...2017/672133630

"In 2017, Boston is on track to have a murder rate of 8.7 per 100,000 people, compared to the
estimated rates of 3.3 per 100,000 in New York City and 6.8 per 100,000 in Los Angeles, according to
the Brennan Center."

Wonder how this is going to work. "Starting in January, authorities will have a judicial system
devoted exclusively to processing gun offenses in the Suffolk Superior Court after being operated
for more than a decade in the Boston Municipal Court."

A lot of law officers are down on systems which allow gun offenders to get '30 days probation'.


Big cities in Massachusetts are not immune to the rise in gun related
fatalities. Gangs exist here as they do elsewhere in the nation.


But the statistics do point out the ineffectiveness of more stringent gun laws.


I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.

I was referring to Boston's murder rate, higher than New York or Los Angeles, even with the very
strict gun laws in the state. It's not the 'legally purchased' firearms that are causing that, I
don't think. Folks who follow all the gun laws don't do the shooting. Wonder how many of the other
than gang shootings were done by owners of legally acquired firearms.

These people are in the business of selling illegal drugs that they
have no problem finding. Why would it be hard to find illegal guns?
In fact I bet a lot of street level drug deals are trading drugs for
stolen guns.

We're not talking about 'illegal' guns. We're talking about gun control laws. Those apply to the law
abiding, not the drug and illegal gun dealers.

Yeah, why look at the majority of the murders when you can pass more
laws that *might* have an effect on less than 2% of them?
Most of these guns were purchased legally by adults.
Of course that has consequences too. Back in the 60s and 70s it was
all about "Saturday Night Specials". Small caliber, cheap, imported
handguns were banned. Now the thugs are carrying 9mm and .45 Sigs,
Glocks and S&Ws. Was that an improvement? At least when they had a no
name .32 auto, there was a good chance it would jam and you could run
away. Even if they hit you it was a .22, .25 or .32 usually with FMJ
bullets. That is far more survivable than being hit by a high
performance 9mm or .45.


What little I've read on that subject seems to indicate the more
ferocious round is the .357 Magnum. I don't really want to find out,
though.

On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/24/18 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:50:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 01:05:25 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:19:14 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:56:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 3:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:58:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 8:46 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:17:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/22/2018 11:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:47:22 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Maybe the fact that the military look alike weapons have extremely high
capacity magazines available.

It is pretty hard to find any kind of gun with a detachable magazine
where they don't have big ones. It is certainly true of the Rugers.



Try to legally buy one in Massachusetts. If you showed up at a range
with one the range safety officer would confiscate it and escort you
from the range ... at least they would at the club I belonged to.


Even with laws as strict as they are in MA, Boston didn't have a
very good year in 2017.

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/teen...2017/672133630

"In 2017, Boston is on track to have a murder rate of 8.7 per
100,000 people, compared to the
estimated rates of 3.3 per 100,000 in New York City and 6.8 per
100,000 in Los Angeles, according to
the Brennan Center."

Wonder how this is going to work. "Starting in January,
authorities will have a judicial system
devoted exclusively to processing gun offenses in the Suffolk
Superior Court after being operated
for more than a decade in the Boston Municipal Court."

A lot of law officers are down on systems which allow gun
offenders to get '30 days probation'.


Big cities in Massachusetts are not immune to the rise in gun related
fatalities. Gangs exist here as they do elsewhere in the nation.


But the statistics do point out the ineffectiveness of more stringent gun laws.


I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.

I was referring to Boston's murder rate, higher than New York or Los
Angeles, even with the very
strict gun laws in the state. It's not the 'legally purchased'
firearms that are causing that, I
don't think. Folks who follow all the gun laws don't do the shooting.
Wonder how many of the other
than gang shootings were done by owners of legally acquired firearms.

These people are in the business of selling illegal drugs that they
have no problem finding. Why would it be hard to find illegal guns?
In fact I bet a lot of street level drug deals are trading drugs for
stolen guns.

We're not talking about 'illegal' guns. We're talking about gun control
laws. Those apply to the law
abiding, not the drug and illegal gun dealers.

Yeah, why look at the majority of the murders when you can pass more
laws that *might* have an effect on less than 2% of them?
Most of these guns were purchased legally by adults.
Of course that has consequences too. Back in the 60s and 70s it was
all about "Saturday Night Specials". Small caliber, cheap, imported
handguns were banned. Now the thugs are carrying 9mm and .45 Sigs,
Glocks and S&Ws. Was that an improvement? At least when they had a no
name .32 auto, there was a good chance it would jam and you could run
away. Even if they hit you it was a .22, .25 or .32 usually with FMJ
bullets. That is far more survivable than being hit by a high
performance 9mm or .45.


What little I've read on that subject seems to indicate the more
ferocious round is the .357 Magnum. I don't really want to find out,
though.


Lots more power than a 9mm. Problem with the .357 is it goes though the
target and hits someone though a house wall or a mile later hits some
innocent bystanders.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:26:49 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:11:43 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I just didn't grow up with my parents saying, "Why don't you go out and
play with your .22 rifle" just to get me out of their hair. It was bad
enough when (in the middle of the summer) they finally caught me going
outside with a winter coat, knit hat and carrying swimming googles.
They weren't aware of the BB gun fights a bunch of us had.

See that must be a northern thing. I never heard of anyone shooting at
someone else with a BB gun when we were growing up. It was still a gun
and we were taught to not even point it at someone. My father would
have stomped a mud hole in my ass if he saw me point a cap gun at
someone.

We never had BB gun fights, but we did have a lot of 'Fanner 50' fights.
I suppose my parents were a
bit less strict than yours. We had to collect bottles to buy caps with!

Later on we collected wire, burned of the insulation, and sold the copper
to the junk yard. Didn't
get much, but it would be enough to buy a box of .22 shorts. I think they
were about 50 cents a box
then.


Maybe less than that. 22lr was 50 cents a box here. Cheaper by the
brick.

On 2/24/2018 1:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.


Wow. That certainly disqualifies all the other honorably discharged vets.

On 2/24/18 1:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/24/2018 1:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/24/18 12:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:17:42 -0500, John H.
wrote:

I could see making an exception for an
individual who has a DD 214 with the honorable discharge

I would grant that exception to anything that has an age limit on it.



Charles Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines. Lee Harvey
Oswald received a hardship discharge from the Marines. Timothy McVeigh
was honorably discharged from the Army.


Wow.Â* That certainly disqualifies all the other honorably discharged vets.


Not at all...I just think that if there are new rules in guns, they
should apply to everyone.

On 2/24/18 1:20 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/24/18 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:50:48 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 01:05:25 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:19:14 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:56:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 3:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:58:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/23/2018 8:46 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:17:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/22/2018 11:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:47:22 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Maybe the fact that the military look alike weapons have extremely high
capacity magazines available.

It is pretty hard to find any kind of gun with a detachable magazine
where they don't have big ones. It is certainly true of the Rugers.



Try to legally buy one in Massachusetts. If you showed up at a range
with one the range safety officer would confiscate it and escort you
from the range ... at least they would at the club I belonged to.


Even with laws as strict as they are in MA, Boston didn't have a
very good year in 2017.

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/teen...2017/672133630

"In 2017, Boston is on track to have a murder rate of 8.7 per
100,000 people, compared to the
estimated rates of 3.3 per 100,000 in New York City and 6.8 per
100,000 in Los Angeles, according to
the Brennan Center."

Wonder how this is going to work. "Starting in January,
authorities will have a judicial system
devoted exclusively to processing gun offenses in the Suffolk
Superior Court after being operated
for more than a decade in the Boston Municipal Court."

A lot of law officers are down on systems which allow gun
offenders to get '30 days probation'.


Big cities in Massachusetts are not immune to the rise in gun related
fatalities. Gangs exist here as they do elsewhere in the nation.


But the statistics do point out the ineffectiveness of more stringent gun laws.


I don't read it that way.

He states that although violent crime is down 7 percent the rising
number of deaths in young people is alarming.

"We're seeing kids younger and younger with handguns," Commissioner
Evans said. "They're shooting at each other, that's why we have to work
harder to keep those kids out of that lifestyle."

He also states that half of the incidents are gang related shootings.

Not too many gang members legally purchase firearms, I don't think.

I was referring to Boston's murder rate, higher than New York or Los
Angeles, even with the very
strict gun laws in the state. It's not the 'legally purchased'
firearms that are causing that, I
don't think. Folks who follow all the gun laws don't do the shooting.
Wonder how many of the other
than gang shootings were done by owners of legally acquired firearms.

These people are in the business of selling illegal drugs that they
have no problem finding. Why would it be hard to find illegal guns?
In fact I bet a lot of street level drug deals are trading drugs for
stolen guns.

We're not talking about 'illegal' guns. We're talking about gun control
laws. Those apply to the law
abiding, not the drug and illegal gun dealers.

Yeah, why look at the majority of the murders when you can pass more
laws that *might* have an effect on less than 2% of them?
Most of these guns were purchased legally by adults.
Of course that has consequences too. Back in the 60s and 70s it was
all about "Saturday Night Specials". Small caliber, cheap, imported
handguns were banned. Now the thugs are carrying 9mm and .45 Sigs,
Glocks and S&Ws. Was that an improvement? At least when they had a no
name .32 auto, there was a good chance it would jam and you could run
away. Even if they hit you it was a .22, .25 or .32 usually with FMJ
bullets. That is far more survivable than being hit by a high
performance 9mm or .45.


What little I've read on that subject seems to indicate the more
ferocious round is the .357 Magnum. I don't really want to find out,
though.


Lots more power than a 9mm. Problem with the .357 is it goes though the
target and hits someone though a house wall or a mile later hits some
innocent bystanders.



Well, then, if you have to shoot a thug with your .357 MAG, you should
make sure he is standing in front of a good backstop.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 17:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:07:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 12:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:17:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 11:44 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:47:22 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Maybe the fact that the military look alike weapons have extremely high
capacity magazines available.

It is pretty hard to find any kind of gun with a detachable magazine
where they don't have big ones. It is certainly true of the Rugers.



Try to legally buy one in Massachusetts. If you showed up at a range
with one the range safety officer would confiscate it and escort you
from the range ... at least they would at the club I belonged to.

We aren't talking about the range tho are we.



It doesn't matter where you are. Cops catch you out "hunting" or
shooting in the woods with a magazine in excess of 10 round capacity you
will loose it, the gun and your permit to have one.


That is just you and maybe Bill. Even the formally Free State of
Maryland, Harry can have a 50 round magazine that he bought in
Virginia.


We do not need a permit to own a firearm. We are limited to 10round mags
on any rifle.

You still have a banned list tho don't you?