About Us

Mr. Luddite[_4_]

On 6/30/2018 6:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:17:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 6/30/2018 3:56 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:59:25 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:56:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 10:34 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite

... shooting in Annapolis, MD ?
..........

This strict gun control laws are really paying off, arenâ€™t
they?

Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and
out of
control.Â* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't
surprise me if he turns out to beÂ* a right wing nutcase.

Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the
guy from
photo recognition software. It was reported he did
"something" to
obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old,
named
Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement
sources, who
apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland.

Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim
in 2012
against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a
minor
conviction for "harassment" some years ago.

Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny,
since
Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws.

They have most of the things people are clamoring for as
"sensible"
or "common sense" gun laws
* handgun license to buy one
* handgun de facto registration
*Assault Weapons ban
* high cap magazine ban
* universal background checks on all sales
* red flag law

Do they still have that stupid fired case law?

As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws.

There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification
license."Â* Even an idiot like Alex could get one.

I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means.

There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are
banned if
they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the
shelf,
and any number of different semi-auto rifles.

Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is
legal, as is
buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland.

I have no idea what a "red flag" law is.

Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of
sensible
gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the
ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media
rantings but
they didn't.

Thanks for pointing out the futility tho.

Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip!

I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can
be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns
already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who
owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most
places already have them.

The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion
for
many here ... is a required registration of all guns
and strict enforcement of the required registration.Â* If for some
reason
you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not
registered to
you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that
firearm.

The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held
responsible for it and it's use.Â* If stolen, sold or legally
transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required
within
48 hours.

Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles.

So to some ... go take an antacid.

It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me.

I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms as a
decent
start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the
registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser. All
firearms, no exceptions.

That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all.
They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the dealer
within hours. What would registration do?

I can't understand why you are so down on registration of firearms
and the attendant paperwork and
bureaucracy.

The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when he robs
a 7/11, shoots someone, and
leaves his gun on the counter as he departs.

Now get off this negative attitude!

There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd like to
see implemented and enforced.Â* Similar to some of the Admiralty/Maritime
laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity should have
some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record,
regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected to the
crime committed.

Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass
killings" so therefore it's not helpful,Â* I'd like to make the point
that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on owner's
heads they may be more careful in the control of who has access to
their firearms.Â* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings
who got the firearm from his mother who technically owned it.

It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the responsibility
that goes with having firearms.

1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or
criminal activities using firearms.Â* What is required is a cultural
change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd
Amendment rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the
world to argue that any further attempt to control the use and
ownership of firearms is fruitless.Â* Change has to start somewhere.
Better to recognize and
accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable
attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a blind
eye and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures have
been enacted.

I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self defense
and sporting activities.Â* With that right comes responsibility however.

I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm.

I see no problem if the "kid" is of legal age to own the firearm and
it is transferred to him along with a new registration of ownership.

That leaves the original owner (gifter) with no further responsibility.

Of course under the rules I have proposed if someone just gifts a
firearm to someone without any documentation of the transfer, the
original owner should still be held responsible if that firearm ever
becomes used in criminal activity.

I still ask, why is documentation a mitigator in any crimes?
What difference does it really make?
Virtually every one of these mass shootings involve legally purchased
and properly documented firearms.

When you look at the bulk of the murders (around the drug trade), the
guns are usually stolen and I doubt anyone will be rushing down to the
police station to register a stolen gun, particularly since most are
barred from owning one in the first place.

Because we have to change our thinking about gun ownership, not outlaw them.

You said you had a shotgun at 15 and "unfettered" access to a .22 before
then. Tim just mentioned that he had a .357 at 15 and a .44 at 17.

Obviously both of you were responsible and careful with them otherwise
either or both of you would not be around to be posting in rec.boats today.

But, let me ask you this:

Do you (and Tim) think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your
neighborhoods should have the right to have a shotgun or a .357 whatever
it was?

Is your confidence in other families and the parents that control
them high enough to feel comfortable with kids barely beyond puberty
walking around with those firearms?

Not me. Many parents today don't even enforce some of the basic
rules we grew up with.

I do understand what your saying ass well as asking, Richard. And it's a difficult question for me to answer. You said "think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your neighborhoods should have the right ..."

Well, around my 'neighborhood' you'll find that about any teenager has at least access to some type of a firearm. I mean, when the first day of deer season rolls around, the local schools shut down because most of the kids are going to be out deer hunting anyhow. "free day" is what the schools call it.

Now to be (I take it you mean 'casually") Walking around with a firearm, I'd say not only no, but "heck no!"
When I was a kid buying a .357, I had already been ingrained with a great deal of respect for people and for the firearms. You don't go flagging it around in front of people.

I'd like to say I that would be true with kids in my area today.

Me too. But I am not sure in today's days of violent video games and
lack of strong parental control of kids that access to firearms at 15
as a general rule is a good idea.

I am sure the community you grew up in was different back then and I
know you had strong family influences. Sounds like that culture remains
today but I am not sure that's true everywhere.

Well of course it's not true everywhere! I wouldn't give 'any kid' a rifle, and I'm sure most
'responsible' adults feel the same way. But, back to what Greg said, none of this extra paperwork
you propose would have stopped any of the shootings!

OK. Forget it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us