On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:17:16 -0400, wrote:

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.



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.

For all time? The gun will never break will never get sold to a pawn
shop, will never do anything except continually circle around with
criminals, even after they're killed by the cops during their violent
rampage? Give me a ****ing break.

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.

Huh? the crime lab doesn't need a visible serial number to get it off
the gun. Read up.

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.,

Citation? doubtful. There are thousands going on all the time.

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.


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

We would do a whole lot more stopping the drug war than ramping up the
gun war.

Nice, but nothing to do with the question at hand.

When are we going to figure out that driving a business underground
only makes it worse.

Illegal gun possession is already underground. Time to make it more
difficult.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:52:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

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 right. But, nobody is actually talking about something like
that in a serious way. I'd be happy if there were no guns. I mean
zero. Just like no nukes. your point?

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.

Really? Too many people? That's of course bull****, but lets assume
it's true. Carried to its logical end point, they might be in the
majority. I thought this was a democracy? So, you're saying **** the
democratic process, and you're going to decide to keep guns around
even though the majority doesn't want them. Of course this is just the
logical conclusion to your bull****.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:31:49 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

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.

Which is 1/6 of the population, thus they are in the extreme minority.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"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.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

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

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:10:58 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

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.

You got it.

On 3/27/2013 1:32 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

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

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.


....next stop, 2014, a democratic congress and senate, and a nice list to
start your confiscation ...

JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/27/2013 1:32 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

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

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.


...next stop, 2014, a democratic congress and senate, and a nice list to
start your confiscation ...

Your place would be the place to start, PsychoSnotty.

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.

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.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

On 3/27/2013 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
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.

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.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


My dad was strict.. "There is no such thing as an unloaded gun", and
"More people are killed by *empty* guns....". Of course his point was
never ever point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy, this meant
always, even when the gun was "unloaded". Kind of like some of the
training I do with my kid, muscle train to never ever point the gun at
anything until you are ready to shoot it, just by second nature.

The guy that killed his kid the other day "cleaning" his gun, should go
to jail, period, he is a murderer.... If my dad had raised the guy, his
kid would be alive right now. I am adamant about it. Got a close
relative redneck who thinks I am a pussy to this day because I wouldn't
hold his german lugar in the house cause "I didn't intend to fire it"...
Another thing my dad said, "never touch another mans weapon unless you
are going to fire it"... Never asked him why, kept me alive this long
and Lord knows I have been around enough guns in another life