In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.


That's unconstitutional. 2nd Amendment.
But you can support selling guns to criminals and nutjobs if you wish.
1st Amendment.
Learn about the law before you pipe up.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.
And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

===

It's a classic case of an ineffective cure that ends up being worse
than the disease. You come across as being just another semi
hysterical anti gun weenie. Have you ever looked at the number of
kids killed in accidents or by suicide? Those are *very* big
numbers. I personally know of close to a dozen young people who were
killed in car accidents as opposed to one guy who was killed in a
hunting accident. Since that's too small a sample for statistical
accuracy, I suspect the actual ratio is much higher than the 12 to 1
that I cite.

"much higher than the 12 to 1 that I cite," eh? That's incredibly
ignorant.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/f...vehicle-deaths
Of course car registration, training and safety are highly regulated.
And many, many more people drive cars than own guns.
But any dumb**** legal owner of a gun can legally sell his gun to a
criminal or nutjob.
Yep. You're making a lot of sense here.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

You are delusional. Do you really think a guy buying guns out of the
trunk of a car in Chicago is going to care if it was stolen? The
numbers might be ground off anyway. It is going to end up in a storm
drain anyway, as soon as he shoots someone with it. I would not be
surprised if these guns live the rest of their life with the ammo that
was in it when it was stolen. There are not a lot of places where you
can go target shooting in the South side of Chicago.


So now you're agreeing with iboaterer that most guns used in crimes are
stolen? Dance, dance.
According to the ATF only 10-15% of crimes are committed with stolen
guns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html
But keep dancing.




The guy selling the gun will care if he has to explain how his gun
ended up at a crime scene.

Do you really think the guy selling stolen guns really gives a ****
who filled out the last 4473 on it?
The same would be true of the guy buying it.
If a guy is a felon, having a stolen gun or a gun with a ground off
serial number is only marginally worse than having the gun in the
first place.
Those are the kinds of charges that get traded away in the quest for a
plea on the top count. That is one reason why there are so few
convictions on firearms charges.,

So you add the "ground off serial number myth" to the "stolen guns"
myth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-B...vering-Hidden-
Serial-Numbers-From-Firearms&id=917211
What's the name of that step? Lying two-step?

According to you, you'd rather say **** it
and not do anything, even if it's a small thing to make the situation
better. God ****ing forbid you have to fill out a form.

I have said several times that if the private seller had access to the
instant check system, I would have no problem with the law.
most 4473s are filed electronically these days anyway.


Whoa. I thought you said that could be used to "blackmail your
neighbor." And you were opposed to a fee being charged by an FFL dealer
to do the transfer, calling it a "tax."
What's this step called? The bull****ter shuffle?

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

--------------------------------

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

---------------------------------------------

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.

"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

----------------------------------------

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:27:34 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.

About 95% of the land area however.

And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Not really. I grew up in a rural area where just about everyone
owned guns. Where I am now there are 10,000 acre cattle ranches just
a few miles from town.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:46:01 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

NRA making robocalls to residents of Newtown. Goes to show you what pigs
they really are. I'm sure that Herring and Scotty won't say a word about
it, unless they think it's a great idea.

http://tinyurl.com/cyd426h

I got robo called by Bloomburg today.

Do you really think it's the same as the NRA robocalling people in
Newtown after what's happened?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:48:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

I got robo called by Bloomburg today.

Do you really think it's the same as the NRA robocalling people in
Newtown after what's happened?

Pretty much, I just hung up on them too.

So..... the NRA calling people in a town rocked by deaths of their young
kids and trying to sell them on the great virtues of guns while they are
still mourning the deaths is the same to you as someone calling you
about a magazine subscription? You must really think you're important
then.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
. ..


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

--------------------------------

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

---------------------------------------------

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

I agree. We shouldn't pass laws just for the sake of doing that.
However, many many studies have shown and empiracle evidence has shown
that it'll help.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

So?

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

It will going forward. After a time, perhaps a long time, there will
be fewer and fewer unregistered guns. If that's the best we can expect
it's still better than nothing.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.

So far so good... I read on...

4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.

Sticking point. Many of the 300 or so laws are poorly written or have
been watered down. New ones or revised ones need to be written and
enforced.

5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.

Total 100 percent agreement. Of course, this requires some education,
and not just about guns.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:04:50 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

===

It's a classic case of an ineffective cure that ends up being worse
than the disease. You come across as being just another semi
hysterical anti gun weenie. Have you ever looked at the number of
kids killed in accidents or by suicide? Those are *very* big
numbers. I personally know of close to a dozen young people who were
killed in car accidents as opposed to one guy who was killed in a
hunting accident. Since that's too small a sample for statistical
accuracy, I suspect the actual ratio is much higher than the 12 to 1
that I cite.

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

In anycase, you're diatribe has nothing to do with the issue, which is
thjat Gretwell is a poser.